: Sperber Wilso n ,

,
,
:

,
11
, Blakemore ( 1987,
( discourse connect ives) 1990, 1992) , Sanders, Spooren & Noordman
( discourse markers) ( F raser, 1997) ( 1992; 1993) , Rouchota ( 1996) , U nger ( 1996)
: ,
( 1) We w er e late in leaving home. N ever theless , we
ar rived on time.
( 2) It should fly . Af ter all, we fo llowed directions. 21
( 3) We oug ht to speak to Har ry about that po int. I n-
Sperber Wilson ( 1986/ 1995)
cidentally , w here is he today?
,
( 4) He was insensitive to the group. s needs. Conse-
quently there was a lot of bad feeling. , ,

, ,
,
( conjunct ions)
( logical connec- ,
t ors)
( discourse operators) ( blueprint of meaning ) ,
( discourse particles) ( prag- ,
mat ic expressions ) ( pragmatic ( speaker meaning )
markers) ( , 1998a) ;

, ( illocut ionary force)
, ,
; , ,
,
, ,
, , )
, ( ostensive_inferent ial communicat ion mod-
, , el) ,
,
1999 3 ( 119 ) # 1#
, ,
; ,
,
,
, ,

, ,
,
, 1, ,
, ,
,
2
,
31
,
, ,
,
, Rouchot a ( 1996)
, : ?
,
, ?
,
, ?
? Rouchot a
, , / 0( cue w ords) ,
, ,
,
, Blakemore ( 1987, 1990,
, , 3 1992) , ,
, , ,
,
Sperber & Wilson , , Sperber Wilson
, ,

,
: ( 1) ,
; ( 2) ,
,
,

,
,
# 2 #

, ,
, , :
, ; / but0
, , ; / so0 ;
, / moreover 0
, ,
, ( explicit)
,

,
41
,
, ,
, ( )
, ,
,
: , ,
( 5) ( contex t: Peter is weighing a portion of M uesli) ,
food of a mixture of uncooked cereal, nuts, dried ,
fruit, and milk) ,
M ary : I should pay so me attention to my diet too . ,
( 6) ( contex t: Peter is back from jogg ing )
,
M ary: So you. re trying to keep fit.

( 7) ( contex t: Peter comes home fr om work at 3: 00)

M ary: But you had to work late shift today.
,
( 8) ( contex t: Peter has his leg in plaster)
M ary: Even a small child w ould have seen that , ,
manhole. , / Ow ner for Sale0,
( 9) ( contex t: Peter is browsing through a PC mag a- / Ow ner0/ Ow ner_jeepny0,
zine) / someone who ow ns0
M ar y: W e should be thinking of buying a comput- ,
er indeed. ,
, M ary , / It. s the taste! 0,
,
/ 0, /
0
( Rouchot a, 1996) ,
,
, / Nescaf! It. s the t ast e! 0
/ 0( short_cir- ,

cuited) ,
# 3#
, , vance)
,
:
( 14) Romeo likes to please Juliet.
( 15) He is Juliet. s favourite.

, ,
, , ( 14) ( 15)
/
, / 0 , ,
/ 0:
0 , ,
( 10) a. Peter. s not stupid. , ,
b. He can find his o wn w ay home. ,
( 11) a. Peter. s not stupid; so he can find his ow n way
,
home.
( 15) so af -
b. Peter. s not stupid; af ter all , he can find his
ter all ,
ow n way home.
, :
( 10) ( a) ( b) :
( 16) a. Romeo likes to please Juliet. ( )
( 11a) ( 11b) ,
b. A f ter all , he is Juliet. s favourite. ( )
so af ter all , ,
( 17) a. Romeo likes to please Juliet. ( )
: b. So he is Juliet. s favourite. ( )
( 12) A : I really disliked the man you introduced me
,
to.
B: He. s your new boss.
( 16) ,
( 13) A : I really disliked the man you introduced me ( 16. )
to. :
B1: A nyw ay , he. s your new boss. ( 16. ) If X is someone. s favourite then X likes to
B2: A f ter all , he. s y our new boss. please this person.
( 12B) , ( 17) ,

, :
( 17. ) I f X likes to please a person then X may become
any-
this personps favour ite.
w ay , ( 13B1) ,
, af ter all so
,
af ter all , y ou see
, , ( 13B2) , :
af t er all , ( 18) Juliet was distressed.
Af ter all, Romeo had not seen her.
( 19) Juliet was distressed.
, , You see, Romeo has not seen her.
, af t er al l you see
, , A f ter all
,
, Blakemore ( 1987, 1992) / ; you see
0 ( semantic constraints on rele-
# 4 #
, ( 18) / Romeo has not seen her0 ( 20. ) , ( 20)
, ( 19) , ,

51
, ( 21)
T heref ore, af ter all , but , yet , t oo, on ,
the one hand ( 20) ( 21)
, ( 20. )
Grice / 0 ( convent ional im- , ,
plicature) , ,
( 20. ) ,
Blakemore ,
, ,
, ( 20) ( 20. )
4

, ,
:
( 20) He w ent to M cDonaldps. T he quarter pounder ,
sounded g ood and he ordered it. ,
( 21) T he r iver had been dr y for a lo ng time. Ever yone ,
attended t he funeral. ,
, ,
( 20) , the quart er pounder ,
, ,
/ your t ime is up0 ,
, ( 21) , :
, You should stop t alking now ,
, ,
( 20. ) ,
, ,
, ,
( 21. ) : ,
( 20. ) He went to a place w here food is pr epared and
,
cooked. It is called - M cDonald. s. .
,
T here he saw ground meat which is formed into
aft er all,
patties, fried and placed between two pieces of
bread. so, too, anyw ay, but , on t he other hand, you
( 21. ) I f a river has been dr y for a lo ng time, then a see ,
river spir it has died. When a spirit dies ther e is ,
a funeral. T he r iver had been dry for a long
time. , :
, ( 20) ( 22) A : Susan. s not coming today.
# 5#
 B: T om. s in town. ( Blakemore, 1988)
B1: A f ter all, T om. s in tow n.
B2: So T om. s in town. ,
B3: You see , T om. s in tow n.
, ,
B4: H ow ever , T om. s in tow n.

B5: A ny w ay , T om. s in to wn.
Grice ( 1975)
, ( 22A) ( 22B)
, ,
, ( 22B) ,
,
( 22B1 ) 22B5) ( 22A)
:
, ( 27) He is an Englishman; he is, ther ef or e, brave.
, theref ore ,
, , ,
/ 0( consequence)
, ,
, Grice , t here-
f or e ,
,
, t herefore
, , , af ter all
:
( ) ( 28) He is brave; he is, af ter all , an Englishman.
: ,
( 23) M y neighbor asked me if I would like to go to theref ore
her son. s school play. I told her I couldn. t. , af t er all
( 24) T here was $ 4 in his wallet. So he hadn. t spent T her ef or e, af t er all
all the money .
( 25) I cooked myself an omelette and then spent the
evening mar king essays. ,
( 23) ,
( 24) ( 25) ,
, ,

, ,
, ( 26) : / ( 27 )
( 26) So you. ve spent your money. ( , t heref ore ,

)
so , ,
( 24)
so
61
, H alliday & H asan ( 1976) so
,
# 6 #


4. 56 ( , 1997) 7 ) 8

( 13) ( 13. ) ( 13. . )

, , , ,

,

,
, , Blakemore, D. L . 1987. Semantic Constr aints on Rele-
, , vance . Ox for d: Blackwell.
, Blakemore, D. L. 1988. T he o rganization of discourse. In
Federick J. N ewmyer ( ed. ) . L inguistics : T he

Cambr idge Sur vey : 229_250. Cambridge U n-

i
Sperber Wilson
versity Press.

Blakemore, D. L. 1990. Constraints on interpretations.

,
In Ber keley L ing uist ics Society ( ed. ) . Proceedings
of the Six teenth A nnual M eetings of the Ber keley
, L inguistics Society . Ber keley.
Blakemore, D. L . 1992. Under standing Utter ances . Ox-
ford: Blackw ell.
? Blass, R. 1990. Relevance Relations in D iscourse: A

? S tudy w ith Special Ref er ence to Sissala. Cambridge

U niversity Press.
?
Celce_M urcia, M . & D. L arsen_F reeman. 1983. T he
, ( 1986; 1987)
Grammar Book ) A n ESL / EFL T eacher . s Course.

N ew bury House Publishers.

, Clark, H. H. 1997. Using Language. Cambridge U n-
i
, , versity Press.
Fillmore, C. J. 1997. L ectures on D eixis . CSL I Publica-
, / 0/ tions.
/ 0
0 Fr aser , B. 1997. What are discourse markers? Jour nal of

, Pr agmatics , the special issue to honor Jacob M ey .

Fr aser, B. ( fort hcoming ) . Some Remar ks on t he Dis-

course M arkers but in English.

Gr ice, H. P. 1975. Log ic and conversatio n. In Grice

( ed. ) . Studies in the Way of W or ds. Harvard U n-
i
versity Press.
1. ( contextual assum pt ions ) , ,
Halliday, M . A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in
,
English. L ondo n: Longman.
,
K eller, E. 1981. Gambits: Conversational strategy sig-

2. ( cognit ive cont ext ) :
nals. I n Coulmas, F. ( ed. ) . Conver sational Rou-
tine: Ex p lor ations in S tandar dised Communication
3. : ( 1) Situations and Prep atter ned Speech. M outon Pub-
, ; ( 2) lishers: 93_113.
; ( 3) , K nott, A . & R. Dale. 1994. U sing ling uist ic phenome-
# 7#
 na to motivate a set of coherence relat ions. D iscourse Stubbs, M . 1983. D iscourse A nalysis : T he Sociolinguistic
Processes 18: 35_62. A naly sis of N atural Language. Ox for d: Basil
M ann, W. C. & S. A. T hompso n. 1986. R elatio nal Blackwell.
proposition in discourse. D iscourse Processes 9: 57_90. U nger , C. 1996. T he scope of discourse connectives: im-
Quirk, R . et al. 1972/ 1985. A Co mp r ehensive Gr ammar plications fo r discourse organization. Jour nal of L in-
of the English L anguage. London: L ong man. guistics 32: 403- 438.
R edeker, G . 1991. Review article: L ing uist ic markers of van Dijk, T . 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Jour nal of
discourse structure. L inguistics 29: 1139_72. Pr agmatics 3: 447_456.
R isselada, R. & W . Spooren. 1998. Intr oduction: dis- , 1988,5 6 ,
course mar kers and coherence r elations. Jour nal of , 1998a, ,
Pr agmatics 30: 131_133.
R ouchota, V. 1996. Discourse co nnectives: w hat do t hey , 1998b, ) ,

link? U CL W or king Pap er s in L inguistics No. 8. 5 6, 3
Sanders, T . J. M . , Spooren, W. P. M . & L . G . M . No- , 1997,5 6 ,
ordman. 1992. T o ward a tax onomy o f coherence re-
lations. D iscourse Processes 15: 1_35. , 1986, , 5
Sanders, T . J. M . , Spooren, W. P. M . & L . G . M . No- 6 6
ordman. 1993. Coherence r elations in a cognitive , 1987, ,5 6 4
theory of discourse representations. Cognitive Lin-
guistics 4: 93_133. : 1998 10 29 ;
Schiffr in, D. 1987. D iscour se Markers . N ew Y ork: , 1999 1 8 ;
Cambridge U niversity P ress. , 1999 4 20
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/ 1995. Relev ance: : 510421
Communication and Cognition. Ox ford: Blackwell.

# 8 #
 Abstracts of major papers in this issue

The pragmatic constraints of discourse connectives, by H e Zir an & Ran Y ongp ing , p. 1
T he present paper makes a tentative study of discourse connectives w ith its focus on their pr ag mat ic constraints on ut-
terance production and interpretation within the theoretical framewor k of relevance theor y proposed by D. Sperber and D.
Wilson. It first g ives a g eneral introduction to the main theoretical framework and its explanation of utterance pro duction
and understanding; then the prag mat ic constraints of discourse connectiv es ar e discussed; finally it is maintained that ut-
terance production and interpretation is a dy namic process as well as a constr ained one.

The explanatory power of relevance theory to discourse coherence, by Miao Xi ngw ei , p. 9

T his paper sets out to inv est igate t he explanatory pow er of Sperber and W ilson. s ( 1986, 1995) r elevance t heory to
discourse coherence. F ollow ing some ling uistsp approach in the framework of relev ance t heory, the author discusses some
of the contributions of relev ance theory to the coher ence_based study of discourse and some of the limitations of the rele-
vance_based approach. T he paper holds that relevance t heory could provide insights into discourse coher ence to some ex-
tent , but coherence should be conceived of as a notion independent of relevance.

The phonological disorders of Broca. s and conduction aphasics, by Cui G ang , p. 22

In this paper, an effort is made to study the phonolog ical diso rders of Chinese Br oca. s and conduction aphasics
t hrough the analysis of the speech of 12 Broca. s and 12 conduction aphasics. T he r esult show s that both Broca. s and con-
duction aphasics have disturbances in producing the phonolog ical forms of w ords and t hey share some similarities in this as-
pect. Besides, differ ences betw een the two groups of aphasics have been obser ved.

Review of studies of bil ingualism and intell igence, by Hu Guili ng , p. 28

T his ar ticle pr esents a brief yet comprehensive discussion on psycholing uistic studies of the r elationship betw een bilin-
gualism and intelligence, including a review of the research history and some important theories and hypotheses raised in
t his ar ea. Some imperfections of the resear ch on bilingualism and intelligence are pointed out; and so me issues for further
r esearch are suggested. T he author concludes that although it is not clear w hether biling ualism and intelligence correlate
closely, becoming a bilingual is most likely worthwhile.

A discussion on the sources of fossilization, by Chen H uiy uan , p. 37

In the 1970s, t here were theories that discussed and explained fossilization from bio logical, social and psycholo gical
points of view and also from the w ay how learners interact w ith the possible feedback.
Later, new ex planations are offered by different researchers. Some of them r elate it to learner strategies, and some
ot her try to explain it by linguistic mar kedness and learners. tendency to behave in a certain way. T he studies ar e of par-
ticular interest and relevant to the study of common linguistic featur es ex ist ing among different groups of learners related
w ith fossilization.
T he exploration of the sources of fossilization can reveal so mething not only about fossilization but also the develop-
ment of learners. language.

# 80 # 1999 3 ( 119 )