语义级差
|
摘要
本论文旨在对语义级差进行综合系统的研究,论述语义级差的本质、定义、作用、功能、根源、实现渠道及其分类。
范畴化划定了范畴成员。范畴成员具有范畴中的自身层次、模糊界限和中心化身份;范畴也会表明范畴成员间的强度差异。这使得范畴成员间产生级差性。语义级差在范畴内产生意义,而范畴要借助语义级差来区分范畴成员的不同层次。基本层次和原型范畴是产生语义级差的基础。这些级差意义的产生与人类的认知机制是吻合的。
情态表达肯定和否定两极间的中间度。情态一向被用来表达人的判断、不确定性、可能性、通常性、义务和意愿等级。当要表达级差性人际意义时,情态会被用来划定意义的不同等级。
言据性作为信息或知识的来源划分成眼见来源、耳听来源和推测来源。据素作为言据性的语言表达方式,按照相关信息源的可信度形成级差。采用言据性意味着要表达命题具有事实性的不同等级和意义的级差性。
评价体系作为分析语篇人际意义的理论框架可细分成态度系统、介入系统和级差系统。态度系统解释人类对世界的理解和情感反应,为评价提供素材和思想。介入系统解释观点和情感的来源。借助级差系统,情感、判断和鉴赏可用不同强度来评价。级差的语言实现形式主要是特定评价范畴中语义相近的词汇。除此之外,程度加强词、模糊聚焦词、增强词、评价性句型和语境评价都在不同层面表达级差意义。
人类的交际活动都会带有不同程度的自控和隐含。梯级含义,作为数量含义,通过计算级差要素而推理出的含义。在交际过程中,说话人会表达信息量少的命题,同时否定含有信息大的命题,由此产生梯级含义。当选定并表达级差上的某个数值时,其它数值就被同时否定。级差意味着等级的再划分,也就是等级的多数值性。
隐喻映射出不同概念域间的意义关联性。由于隐喻意义和语言表层语义的不同,就会产生意义的不同层次,从而产生意义强度的级差性。因为人类想象的参与,隐喻意义比平白语言意义更有色彩、更丰富、更形象、更深奥且更有启发性。这就会突出隐喻的修辞色彩,而准确意义却变得模糊。由此,字面意义和隐喻意义在表达上呈现不同的准确性。隐喻语言的模糊性和语言字面意义的准确性构成意义的级差性,表明在表达准确度上的级差性和交际过程中人们的想象力。
借助于语义级差,人们可以用明晰的命名术语和近似性等级来描述世界万象。通过人类认知和思想表达的一切内容都具有主观性特征。主观性扩大了命题和事实间的距离,从而产生客观性和主观性间的渐变等级。语言的经济性体现为人类用相对少的语言形式来传递大量的信息。语义级差因其自身的级差属性恰好节省了语言空间,同样起到传递信息的功能。表达语义的不同等级是为了满足不同层次语境交际的需要。在现实交际语境中,人们会调节语义和语言的等级,从而产生级差意义。通过语法化过程,级差修饰词或级差结构被赋予级差意义。
语义级差是人类认知中的普遍特性,用来表达语言意义的不同等级。语义级差可分为明晰级差和隐含级差。明晰级差的体现方式包括评价语言、情态和言据性;而隐含级差的体现方式是梯级含义和隐喻。语义级差的成因包括人类的主观性、命名需要、语言经济性、语法化和交际语境。
This dissertation is designed as a holistic and systematic study on gradability. It mainly focuses on the nature, definition, role, function, channel, origin and classification of gradability.
Categorization defines the members in a certain category by itself. Some categories have inherent degree of membership, fuzzy boundaries and central membership or show differences in intensity. This leads to the gradability among category members. Gradability functions within categories and categorization differentiate its members with gradability. The basic level and prototype of categories can be the basis to form gradability. Such gradable meaning coincides with the cognitive mechanism of human beings.
Modality shows intermediacy between positive and negative poles. It has been recognized as a major tool to convey speaker’s judgment, uncertainty, probability, usuality, obligation and inclination in a scale. When gradable interpersonal meanings are conveyed, modality comes into its use and defines the different degrees of meaning.
Evidentiality, the source of information or knowledge, is classified into the visual, hearsay and the inferential. Evidentials, the expressions of evidentiality, can form a scale defined by the reliability of the relevant informational sources. The choice of evidentiality produces the hierarchy of factuality of proposition and gradability of meaning.
Appraisal system, a theoretical framework to analyze the interpersonal meanings of a text, is classified into attitude, engagement and graduation systems. Attitude system explains human beings’understanding of the world and their emotional reactions, which provides the materials and ideas for evaluation. Engagement system explains the sources of ideas and emotions. With graduation, the affect, judgment and appreciation can be evaluated into different degrees of intensity. Graduation is mainly realized by the different shades of words in certain evaluative categories. It can also be performed with intensifiers, softening focus words, amplifiers, evaluative structures and contextual evaluation.
Human communication involves a degree of manipulation or concealment. A scalar implicature, a quantity implicature, is inferred from the computation of elements on scales. Scalar implicature is assumed to arise when a speaker is taken to communicate the negation of a more informative proposition by expressing a less informative proposition. When one value in a scale is chosen and meant, the other values are negated. Gradability is the subdividability of a scale and it denotes a multi-valued scale.
Metaphors map across conceptual domains. As there must be some difference between the metaphorical meaning and the surface meaning in language, the meaning degree occurs and gradability in meaning intensity can also be made. With the involvement of human imagination, the metaphorical meaning is colored, richly defined, vivid, profound and enlightening. The rhetorical color of metaphor is focused and the exact meaning is blurred. In this sense, metaphorical expressions shed different degrees of accuracy in meaning from the literal expressions. The vagueness of metaphorical language and the accuracy of literal language constitute the meaning scale, showing the gradability in exactness or imaginative power in human communication.
With gradability, human beings can describe the world with explicit naming terms and a scale of proximity. Everything expressed from human cognition and thought can be subjective. The subjectivity distances the proposition from reality which produces the gradual scale between objectivity and subjectivity. Language economy is manifested by the huge amount of information conveyed by the relatively few language forms. Gradability acts as one functional tool to save the space with degrees. Different degrees of meaning are expressed to meet the appropriate contextual demands at various levels. In the actual communicative contexts, meaning and language can be tuned higher or lower, resulting in the sense of gradability. Certain degree modifiers or structural patterns are embodied with the sense of gradability through the process of grammaticalization.
Gradability is defined as the universal feature of human cognition to show the different grades of meaning and language. Gradability can be divided into explicit and implicit types. The explicit gradability is performed by appraisal language, modality, and evidentiality while the implicit gradability functions with implicature and metaphor. Gradability can be attributed to subjectivity, naming necessity, language economy, grammaticalization and communicative context.
范畴化划定了范畴成员。范畴成员具有范畴中的自身层次、模糊界限和中心化身份;范畴也会表明范畴成员间的强度差异。这使得范畴成员间产生级差性。语义级差在范畴内产生意义,而范畴要借助语义级差来区分范畴成员的不同层次。基本层次和原型范畴是产生语义级差的基础。这些级差意义的产生与人类的认知机制是吻合的。
情态表达肯定和否定两极间的中间度。情态一向被用来表达人的判断、不确定性、可能性、通常性、义务和意愿等级。当要表达级差性人际意义时,情态会被用来划定意义的不同等级。
言据性作为信息或知识的来源划分成眼见来源、耳听来源和推测来源。据素作为言据性的语言表达方式,按照相关信息源的可信度形成级差。采用言据性意味着要表达命题具有事实性的不同等级和意义的级差性。
评价体系作为分析语篇人际意义的理论框架可细分成态度系统、介入系统和级差系统。态度系统解释人类对世界的理解和情感反应,为评价提供素材和思想。介入系统解释观点和情感的来源。借助级差系统,情感、判断和鉴赏可用不同强度来评价。级差的语言实现形式主要是特定评价范畴中语义相近的词汇。除此之外,程度加强词、模糊聚焦词、增强词、评价性句型和语境评价都在不同层面表达级差意义。
人类的交际活动都会带有不同程度的自控和隐含。梯级含义,作为数量含义,通过计算级差要素而推理出的含义。在交际过程中,说话人会表达信息量少的命题,同时否定含有信息大的命题,由此产生梯级含义。当选定并表达级差上的某个数值时,其它数值就被同时否定。级差意味着等级的再划分,也就是等级的多数值性。
隐喻映射出不同概念域间的意义关联性。由于隐喻意义和语言表层语义的不同,就会产生意义的不同层次,从而产生意义强度的级差性。因为人类想象的参与,隐喻意义比平白语言意义更有色彩、更丰富、更形象、更深奥且更有启发性。这就会突出隐喻的修辞色彩,而准确意义却变得模糊。由此,字面意义和隐喻意义在表达上呈现不同的准确性。隐喻语言的模糊性和语言字面意义的准确性构成意义的级差性,表明在表达准确度上的级差性和交际过程中人们的想象力。
借助于语义级差,人们可以用明晰的命名术语和近似性等级来描述世界万象。通过人类认知和思想表达的一切内容都具有主观性特征。主观性扩大了命题和事实间的距离,从而产生客观性和主观性间的渐变等级。语言的经济性体现为人类用相对少的语言形式来传递大量的信息。语义级差因其自身的级差属性恰好节省了语言空间,同样起到传递信息的功能。表达语义的不同等级是为了满足不同层次语境交际的需要。在现实交际语境中,人们会调节语义和语言的等级,从而产生级差意义。通过语法化过程,级差修饰词或级差结构被赋予级差意义。
语义级差是人类认知中的普遍特性,用来表达语言意义的不同等级。语义级差可分为明晰级差和隐含级差。明晰级差的体现方式包括评价语言、情态和言据性;而隐含级差的体现方式是梯级含义和隐喻。语义级差的成因包括人类的主观性、命名需要、语言经济性、语法化和交际语境。
This dissertation is designed as a holistic and systematic study on gradability. It mainly focuses on the nature, definition, role, function, channel, origin and classification of gradability.
Categorization defines the members in a certain category by itself. Some categories have inherent degree of membership, fuzzy boundaries and central membership or show differences in intensity. This leads to the gradability among category members. Gradability functions within categories and categorization differentiate its members with gradability. The basic level and prototype of categories can be the basis to form gradability. Such gradable meaning coincides with the cognitive mechanism of human beings.
Modality shows intermediacy between positive and negative poles. It has been recognized as a major tool to convey speaker’s judgment, uncertainty, probability, usuality, obligation and inclination in a scale. When gradable interpersonal meanings are conveyed, modality comes into its use and defines the different degrees of meaning.
Evidentiality, the source of information or knowledge, is classified into the visual, hearsay and the inferential. Evidentials, the expressions of evidentiality, can form a scale defined by the reliability of the relevant informational sources. The choice of evidentiality produces the hierarchy of factuality of proposition and gradability of meaning.
Appraisal system, a theoretical framework to analyze the interpersonal meanings of a text, is classified into attitude, engagement and graduation systems. Attitude system explains human beings’understanding of the world and their emotional reactions, which provides the materials and ideas for evaluation. Engagement system explains the sources of ideas and emotions. With graduation, the affect, judgment and appreciation can be evaluated into different degrees of intensity. Graduation is mainly realized by the different shades of words in certain evaluative categories. It can also be performed with intensifiers, softening focus words, amplifiers, evaluative structures and contextual evaluation.
Human communication involves a degree of manipulation or concealment. A scalar implicature, a quantity implicature, is inferred from the computation of elements on scales. Scalar implicature is assumed to arise when a speaker is taken to communicate the negation of a more informative proposition by expressing a less informative proposition. When one value in a scale is chosen and meant, the other values are negated. Gradability is the subdividability of a scale and it denotes a multi-valued scale.
Metaphors map across conceptual domains. As there must be some difference between the metaphorical meaning and the surface meaning in language, the meaning degree occurs and gradability in meaning intensity can also be made. With the involvement of human imagination, the metaphorical meaning is colored, richly defined, vivid, profound and enlightening. The rhetorical color of metaphor is focused and the exact meaning is blurred. In this sense, metaphorical expressions shed different degrees of accuracy in meaning from the literal expressions. The vagueness of metaphorical language and the accuracy of literal language constitute the meaning scale, showing the gradability in exactness or imaginative power in human communication.
With gradability, human beings can describe the world with explicit naming terms and a scale of proximity. Everything expressed from human cognition and thought can be subjective. The subjectivity distances the proposition from reality which produces the gradual scale between objectivity and subjectivity. Language economy is manifested by the huge amount of information conveyed by the relatively few language forms. Gradability acts as one functional tool to save the space with degrees. Different degrees of meaning are expressed to meet the appropriate contextual demands at various levels. In the actual communicative contexts, meaning and language can be tuned higher or lower, resulting in the sense of gradability. Certain degree modifiers or structural patterns are embodied with the sense of gradability through the process of grammaticalization.
Gradability is defined as the universal feature of human cognition to show the different grades of meaning and language. Gradability can be divided into explicit and implicit types. The explicit gradability is performed by appraisal language, modality, and evidentiality while the implicit gradability functions with implicature and metaphor. Gradability can be attributed to subjectivity, naming necessity, language economy, grammaticalization and communicative context.
引文
Aikhenvald, A. 2003. Evidentiality in Typological Perspective [A]. In Aikenhenvald & Dixon (eds.), Studies in Evidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Aikenhenvald & Dixon (ed). 2003. Studies in Evidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Anderson, L.B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries [A]. In W. Chafe and J. Nichols, (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology [C]. Norwood, Nj: Ablex.
Andrew, G. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Aristotle. 1933. Metaphysics. Translated by H. Tredennick. London: Heinemann.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination [M]. Translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Benveniste, E. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Trans. M.E. Meek. Coral Gales, FL: University of Miami Press.
Berg. J. 1989. Metaphor, Meaning and Interpretation. In Asa Kaser (eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Language Use. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V..
Bussmann, H. 1996/2000. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M]. Londong: Routledge
Cameron, L. and Low, G. 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. 1995. Quantity maxims and generalized implicature [J]. Lingua 96: 213-244.
Carston, R. 1998. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature [A]. In Robyn Carston & Seiji Uchida (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 37) [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 179-236.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chafe, W. 1986. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing [A]. In W.
Chafe and J. Nichols, (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology [C]. Norwood, Nj: Ablex. 261-272
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds.). 1986a. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. 1986b. Introduction [A]. In W. Chafe and J. Nichols, (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis [M]. Palgrave Macmillan.
Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Dancy, J. 1985. An introduction to Contemporary Epistemology [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Danesi, M. 1986. The role of metaphor in second language pedagogy [M]. Rossegna Italiana di Linguisitica Applicata.
Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linuigstics [M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change [M]. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Tuner. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science [J].
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning [J]. Philosophical Review 67: 377-388.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation [A]. In Peter Cole (eds.), Pragmatics [C].
Grice, H. P. 1978. Further Notes on Logic and Conversation [A]. In Peter Cole (eds.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9) [C]. New York: Academic Press. 113-128.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K and Hansan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. Landon: Langman.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Christian M. I. M. Mathiessen. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning. A Language-based Approach to Cognition. Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse [M]. Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. 2003. On Language and Linguistics [M]. Continuum.
Harnish, R. 1976. Logical form and implicature [A]. In T. Bever et al. (eds.), An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability [C]. New York: Harvester Press. 313-391.
Hart, D. 2003. English Modality in Context [M] . Peter Lang AG.
Hawkes, T. 1980. Metaphor. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd..
Henrike Kuiner. 2000. Negotiating Authority: The Logogenesis of Dialogue in Common Law Judgments [D]. University of Sydney.
Hewings, A. and Hewings, M. 2005. Grammar and Context. Routledge.
Hirschberg, J. 1991. A Theory of Scalar Implicature [M]. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. 1993. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, L. 1972a. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English [D]. Ph D. dissertation, University of California, LA.
Horn, L. 1972b. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English [M]. Bloomington, IN: IULC.
Horn, L. 1978. Some Aspects of Negation [A]. In J. Greenberg et al (eds.), Universals of Human Language [C]. Vol 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 127-210.
Hu Zhuanglin. 2004.Metaphor and Cognition. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Jarvella and Klein, W. (eds.). 1982. Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester and New York: John Wiley.
Jennifer, C. 1983. The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croon Helm.
Jennifer, C. 1995. The Expression of Root and Epistemic Possibility in English [A]. In Bybee/ Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse [C]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 55-66.
Konig, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective [M]. London: Routledge.
Kristeva, J. 1989. Language the Unknown: An Initiation into Linguistics [M], trans. A. M. Menke. New York: Columbia University Press.
Labov, W. 1973. The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings. In Baily and Shuy (eds.),New ways of analyzing variation in English [C]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 340-73.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image Schemas?[J]. In Cognitive Linguistics 1.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (eds.), Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I, Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Subjectification [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5-38.
Lazard, G. 2001. On the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 359-367.
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman: London and New York.
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: A Bradford Book, the MIT Press.
Levinson, S. C. 2001. Pragmatics [M]. Foreign Lanuage Teaching and Research Press.
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein, (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics [C]. Chichester and New York: John Wiley, 101-24.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. 2004. English Text: System and Structure. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause [M]. Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English [M]. Palgrave Macmillan.
McGlone,M. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: OUP.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Moore, T. E. (ed.). 1973. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3) [C]. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. 1989. Language has a heart, in E. Ochs (eds.), The Pragmatics of Affect, special issue of Text 9: 7-25.
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals [M]. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pier Paolo Giglioli. 1972. Language and Social Context [M]. Penguin Books Ltd.
Plungian, V. A. 2001. The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 349-357.
Powell, M. J. 1992. The Systematic development of correlated interpersonal and metalinguistic uses in stance adverbs [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 75-110.
Rakova, M. 2004. The Extent of the Literal [M]. Peking University Press.
Ricoeur, P. 1977. The rule of metaphor [M]. Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Rissanen M. et al. 1984. The Helsinki Diachironic Corpus of English Texts. Department of English, University of Helsinki.
Rogers, R. 1974. Metaphor, a psychoanalytic view [M]. University of California Press.
Rosch, E. 1973. On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories. In Saeed, J. 1997/2000. Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1990. Rhetoric and Relevance. In David Wellbery and John Bender (eds.), The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice [C]. Stanford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 2002. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2004. Relevance Theory. In G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stein, D. and Wright, S. 1995. Subjectivity and subjectification [C]. Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, M. 1996.‘Towards a modal grammar of English: a matter of prolonged fieldwork’. In Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis [C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Susan, H. and Sinclair, J. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation [A]. In Susan Huston and Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford University Press. 2000: 74-101.
Susan, H. 2004. Appraisal Research: Taking a stance in academic writing [D]. University of Technology, Sydney.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford University Press.
Teun A. van Dijk. 1977. Text and Context [M]. Longman Group Limited.
Thompson, G. 2000. Introducing Functional Grammar. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Timothy E. Moore, Cognitive development and the acquisition of language [C]. New York: Academic Press. 111-44.
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change [J]. Language 65: 31-55.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Voloshinov, V. N. 1995. Marxism and Philosophy of Language, Bakhtinian Thought– an Introductory Reader [M]. S. Dentith, L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik (trans.). London: Routledge.
White, P. R. R. 1998. Telling Media Tales: the News Story As Rhetoric [D]. University of Sydney.
Willett, T. 1988. A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J]. Studies in Language 12. 51-97.
Yule. G. 1976. Structural Bases of Typicality Effects [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2: 491-502.
Yule. G. 2000. Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
陈嘉映. 2003.语言哲学[M].北京大学出版社.
陈进. 1999.语境的本质及其特征[J].西安外国语学院学报, (3).
陈新仁. 1994.试探“经济原则”在言语交际中的运行[J].外语学刊, (1).
范文芳. 2001.语法隐喻理论研究[M]北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
房红梅. 2005.言据性的系统功能研究[D].复旦大学.
房红梅. 2006.言据性研究述评[J].现代外语, (2).
桂诗春. 2004.新编心理语言学[M].上海外语教育出版社.
郭聿楷,何英玉. 2002.语义学概论[M].外语教学与研究出版社.
何兆熊. 2001.新编语用学概要.上海外语教育出版社.
何兆熊. 2003.语用学文献选读.上海外语教育出版社.
何自然. 1997.语用学与英语学习[M].上海外语教育出版社.
胡壮麟. 1989.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
胡壮麟. 1994.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海外语教育出版社.
胡壮麟,朱永生,张德禄,李战子. 2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京大学出版社.
黄国文. 2005.功能语言学的理论与应用[M].高等教育出版社.
蒋勇.2004.夸张性隐喻的梯级含义功能[J].现代外语,(3).
蒋勇,龚卫东. 2006.极性词语的梯级模型及补充[J].现代外语,(1).
李基安. 1999.情态意义和情态助动词意义[J].外国语, (4).
李基安. 2000.将来和将来时[J].外国语, (4).
李基安. 2000.现代英语语法[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
梁周敏,王海昌. 2002.简约性:回应时代的哲学追求.《光明日报》, 8月20日.
刘世铸,韩金龙. 2004.新闻话语的评价系统[J].外语电化教学, (8).
束定芳. 2000.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王寅. 2001.语义理论与语义教学[M].上海外语教育出版社.
王寅. 2003.认知语言学与语篇分析[J].外语教学与研究, (3).
王寅. 2007.认知语言学[M].上海外语教育出版社.
王振华. 2001.评价系统及其运作[J].外国语, (6).
王振华. 2004.“硬新闻”的态度研究[J].外语教学, (9).
向明友. 2002a.经济分析语用学说略[J].外语与外语教学, (3).
向明友. 2002b.论言语配置的新经济原则[J].外语教学与研究, (5).
严世清. 1995.隐喻理论史探[J].外国语, (5).
严世清. 2000.隐喻论[M] .苏州:苏州大学出版社.
严世清. 2002.论关联理论的隐喻观[J].解放军外国语学院学报, (2).
严世清. 2003.语法隐喻理论的发展及其理论意义[J].外国语, (3).
杨成虎. 2002.语法化理论与语法隐喻的差异分析[J].福建外语, (1).
杨信彰. 2003.语篇中的评价性手段[J].外语与外语教学, (1).
杨永林. 2004.社会语言学研究[M].上海外语教育出版社.
张克定. 2007.系统功能评价[C].高等教育出版社.
张沛. 2004.隐喻的生命[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
张全生. 2004.中国隐喻研究十年综述[J].新疆师范大学学报, (3).
张绍杰. 2004.语言符号任意性研究[M].上海外语教育出版社.
赵艳芳. 1995.语言的隐喻认知结构---《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介[J].外语教学与研究, (1).
赵艳芳. 2001.认知语言学的理论基础及形成过程[J].外国语, (1).
赵艳芳. 2002.认知语言学概论[M].上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生,严世清. 2000.语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献[J].外语教学与研究, (2).
朱永生. 2004.功能语言学导论[M].上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生. 2005.语境动态研究[M].北京大学出版社.
Aikenhenvald & Dixon (ed). 2003. Studies in Evidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Anderson, L.B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries [A]. In W. Chafe and J. Nichols, (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology [C]. Norwood, Nj: Ablex.
Andrew, G. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Aristotle. 1933. Metaphysics. Translated by H. Tredennick. London: Heinemann.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination [M]. Translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Benveniste, E. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Trans. M.E. Meek. Coral Gales, FL: University of Miami Press.
Berg. J. 1989. Metaphor, Meaning and Interpretation. In Asa Kaser (eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Language Use. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V..
Bussmann, H. 1996/2000. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M]. Londong: Routledge
Cameron, L. and Low, G. 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. 1995. Quantity maxims and generalized implicature [J]. Lingua 96: 213-244.
Carston, R. 1998. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature [A]. In Robyn Carston & Seiji Uchida (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 37) [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 179-236.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chafe, W. 1986. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing [A]. In W.
Chafe and J. Nichols, (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology [C]. Norwood, Nj: Ablex. 261-272
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds.). 1986a. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. 1986b. Introduction [A]. In W. Chafe and J. Nichols, (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis [M]. Palgrave Macmillan.
Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Dancy, J. 1985. An introduction to Contemporary Epistemology [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Danesi, M. 1986. The role of metaphor in second language pedagogy [M]. Rossegna Italiana di Linguisitica Applicata.
Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linuigstics [M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change [M]. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Tuner. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science [J].
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning [J]. Philosophical Review 67: 377-388.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation [A]. In Peter Cole (eds.), Pragmatics [C].
Grice, H. P. 1978. Further Notes on Logic and Conversation [A]. In Peter Cole (eds.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9) [C]. New York: Academic Press. 113-128.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K and Hansan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. Landon: Langman.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Christian M. I. M. Mathiessen. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning. A Language-based Approach to Cognition. Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse [M]. Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. 2003. On Language and Linguistics [M]. Continuum.
Harnish, R. 1976. Logical form and implicature [A]. In T. Bever et al. (eds.), An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability [C]. New York: Harvester Press. 313-391.
Hart, D. 2003. English Modality in Context [M] . Peter Lang AG.
Hawkes, T. 1980. Metaphor. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd..
Henrike Kuiner. 2000. Negotiating Authority: The Logogenesis of Dialogue in Common Law Judgments [D]. University of Sydney.
Hewings, A. and Hewings, M. 2005. Grammar and Context. Routledge.
Hirschberg, J. 1991. A Theory of Scalar Implicature [M]. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. 1993. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, L. 1972a. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English [D]. Ph D. dissertation, University of California, LA.
Horn, L. 1972b. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English [M]. Bloomington, IN: IULC.
Horn, L. 1978. Some Aspects of Negation [A]. In J. Greenberg et al (eds.), Universals of Human Language [C]. Vol 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 127-210.
Hu Zhuanglin. 2004.Metaphor and Cognition. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Jarvella and Klein, W. (eds.). 1982. Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester and New York: John Wiley.
Jennifer, C. 1983. The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croon Helm.
Jennifer, C. 1995. The Expression of Root and Epistemic Possibility in English [A]. In Bybee/ Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse [C]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 55-66.
Konig, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective [M]. London: Routledge.
Kristeva, J. 1989. Language the Unknown: An Initiation into Linguistics [M], trans. A. M. Menke. New York: Columbia University Press.
Labov, W. 1973. The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings. In Baily and Shuy (eds.),New ways of analyzing variation in English [C]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 340-73.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image Schemas?[J]. In Cognitive Linguistics 1.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (eds.), Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I, Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Subjectification [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5-38.
Lazard, G. 2001. On the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 359-367.
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman: London and New York.
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: A Bradford Book, the MIT Press.
Levinson, S. C. 2001. Pragmatics [M]. Foreign Lanuage Teaching and Research Press.
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein, (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics [C]. Chichester and New York: John Wiley, 101-24.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. 2004. English Text: System and Structure. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause [M]. Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English [M]. Palgrave Macmillan.
McGlone,M. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: OUP.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Moore, T. E. (ed.). 1973. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3) [C]. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. 1989. Language has a heart, in E. Ochs (eds.), The Pragmatics of Affect, special issue of Text 9: 7-25.
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals [M]. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pier Paolo Giglioli. 1972. Language and Social Context [M]. Penguin Books Ltd.
Plungian, V. A. 2001. The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 349-357.
Powell, M. J. 1992. The Systematic development of correlated interpersonal and metalinguistic uses in stance adverbs [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 75-110.
Rakova, M. 2004. The Extent of the Literal [M]. Peking University Press.
Ricoeur, P. 1977. The rule of metaphor [M]. Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Rissanen M. et al. 1984. The Helsinki Diachironic Corpus of English Texts. Department of English, University of Helsinki.
Rogers, R. 1974. Metaphor, a psychoanalytic view [M]. University of California Press.
Rosch, E. 1973. On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories. In Saeed, J. 1997/2000. Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1990. Rhetoric and Relevance. In David Wellbery and John Bender (eds.), The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice [C]. Stanford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 2002. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2004. Relevance Theory. In G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stein, D. and Wright, S. 1995. Subjectivity and subjectification [C]. Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, M. 1996.‘Towards a modal grammar of English: a matter of prolonged fieldwork’. In Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis [C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Susan, H. and Sinclair, J. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation [A]. In Susan Huston and Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford University Press. 2000: 74-101.
Susan, H. 2004. Appraisal Research: Taking a stance in academic writing [D]. University of Technology, Sydney.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford University Press.
Teun A. van Dijk. 1977. Text and Context [M]. Longman Group Limited.
Thompson, G. 2000. Introducing Functional Grammar. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Timothy E. Moore, Cognitive development and the acquisition of language [C]. New York: Academic Press. 111-44.
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change [J]. Language 65: 31-55.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Voloshinov, V. N. 1995. Marxism and Philosophy of Language, Bakhtinian Thought– an Introductory Reader [M]. S. Dentith, L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik (trans.). London: Routledge.
White, P. R. R. 1998. Telling Media Tales: the News Story As Rhetoric [D]. University of Sydney.
Willett, T. 1988. A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J]. Studies in Language 12. 51-97.
Yule. G. 1976. Structural Bases of Typicality Effects [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2: 491-502.
Yule. G. 2000. Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
陈嘉映. 2003.语言哲学[M].北京大学出版社.
陈进. 1999.语境的本质及其特征[J].西安外国语学院学报, (3).
陈新仁. 1994.试探“经济原则”在言语交际中的运行[J].外语学刊, (1).
范文芳. 2001.语法隐喻理论研究[M]北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
房红梅. 2005.言据性的系统功能研究[D].复旦大学.
房红梅. 2006.言据性研究述评[J].现代外语, (2).
桂诗春. 2004.新编心理语言学[M].上海外语教育出版社.
郭聿楷,何英玉. 2002.语义学概论[M].外语教学与研究出版社.
何兆熊. 2001.新编语用学概要.上海外语教育出版社.
何兆熊. 2003.语用学文献选读.上海外语教育出版社.
何自然. 1997.语用学与英语学习[M].上海外语教育出版社.
胡壮麟. 1989.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
胡壮麟. 1994.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海外语教育出版社.
胡壮麟,朱永生,张德禄,李战子. 2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京大学出版社.
黄国文. 2005.功能语言学的理论与应用[M].高等教育出版社.
蒋勇.2004.夸张性隐喻的梯级含义功能[J].现代外语,(3).
蒋勇,龚卫东. 2006.极性词语的梯级模型及补充[J].现代外语,(1).
李基安. 1999.情态意义和情态助动词意义[J].外国语, (4).
李基安. 2000.将来和将来时[J].外国语, (4).
李基安. 2000.现代英语语法[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
梁周敏,王海昌. 2002.简约性:回应时代的哲学追求.《光明日报》, 8月20日.
刘世铸,韩金龙. 2004.新闻话语的评价系统[J].外语电化教学, (8).
束定芳. 2000.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王寅. 2001.语义理论与语义教学[M].上海外语教育出版社.
王寅. 2003.认知语言学与语篇分析[J].外语教学与研究, (3).
王寅. 2007.认知语言学[M].上海外语教育出版社.
王振华. 2001.评价系统及其运作[J].外国语, (6).
王振华. 2004.“硬新闻”的态度研究[J].外语教学, (9).
向明友. 2002a.经济分析语用学说略[J].外语与外语教学, (3).
向明友. 2002b.论言语配置的新经济原则[J].外语教学与研究, (5).
严世清. 1995.隐喻理论史探[J].外国语, (5).
严世清. 2000.隐喻论[M] .苏州:苏州大学出版社.
严世清. 2002.论关联理论的隐喻观[J].解放军外国语学院学报, (2).
严世清. 2003.语法隐喻理论的发展及其理论意义[J].外国语, (3).
杨成虎. 2002.语法化理论与语法隐喻的差异分析[J].福建外语, (1).
杨信彰. 2003.语篇中的评价性手段[J].外语与外语教学, (1).
杨永林. 2004.社会语言学研究[M].上海外语教育出版社.
张克定. 2007.系统功能评价[C].高等教育出版社.
张沛. 2004.隐喻的生命[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
张全生. 2004.中国隐喻研究十年综述[J].新疆师范大学学报, (3).
张绍杰. 2004.语言符号任意性研究[M].上海外语教育出版社.
赵艳芳. 1995.语言的隐喻认知结构---《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介[J].外语教学与研究, (1).
赵艳芳. 2001.认知语言学的理论基础及形成过程[J].外国语, (1).
赵艳芳. 2002.认知语言学概论[M].上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生,严世清. 2000.语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献[J].外语教学与研究, (2).
朱永生. 2004.功能语言学导论[M].上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生. 2005.语境动态研究[M].北京大学出版社.
© 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 |