Диссертация (1173186), страница 24
Текст из файла (страница 24)
отд., 1986. – 272 с.115.Хэллидей М. Теория речевых актов. – М.: Исток, 1997. – 467с.139116.Шевченко И.С. Историческая динамика прагматики предложения:английское вопросительное предложение 16-20 вв.: монография. –Харьков: Константа, 1998. – 186 с.117.Шевченко И.С. Речевой акт как единица дискурса: когнитивно-прагматический подход // Тверской лингвистический меридиан: сб. науч.статей.
– Вып. 7: В мире языка. – Тверь: Твер. гос. ун-т, 2007. – С. 69-80.118.Allan K. Meaning and speech acts.http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ling/speech_acts_allan.shtml.119.Allwood J. Some comments on Wallace Chafe‘s ―How ConsciousnessShapes Language‖ // Pragmatics and Cognition, 1996. – №4 (1).120.Austin J. L.
How to Do Things with Words / J. L. Austin. – London:Oxford University Press, 1962. – 179 p.121.Bach K., Harnish R. M. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts / K.Bach, R. M. Harnish. – Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1979. – 306 р.122.Bach K., Harnish R. M. How performatives really work: a reply to Searle// Linguistics and Philosophy, 1992. pp 93-110.123.Bach K. Speech Acts and Pragmatics [Electronic resource] // TheBlackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language, 2003.
– Access mode:http://online.sfsu.edu/kbach/Spch.Prag.htm. – Title from the screen.124.Bayer K. Sprechen und Situation. – Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1984.125.Berg M. Die Überzeugungsstrategien von Restitutionsbewegungen: DieForderungen nach Reparationen für die Sklaverei in den USA //Überzeugungsstrategien. – Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008 – s. 61-71126.Biber D., Leech G., Johansson S., Conrad S., Finegan E.
LongmanGrammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Longman, 1999.127.Britton J. Functions of Language. In: Halliday, M. & Hasan, R.Language, context and text: aspects of language in social-semiotic Perspective,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. pp. 13-14.140128.Brown P., Levinson S.
Universals in language usage: politenessphenomena In: Goody, E.N. (Ed.) Questions and Politeness. – Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1978. – 289 p.129.Bühler K. Language functions. In: Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. Language,context and text: aspects of language in social-semiotic Perspective, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1970. pp. 13-14.130.Caffi C. On Mitigation // Journal of Pragmatics. – 1999. – №31 – P. 881-909.131.Caffi C. Mitigation.
– Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. – 342 p.132.Crystal, D. and D. Davy Advanced Conversational English. London:Longman, 1975. – 132p.133.Czerwionka L.A. Mitigation in Spanish Discourse: Social and CognitiveMotivations, Linguistic Analyses, and Effects on Interaction and Interlocutors.– Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, 2010. – 260 p.134.Davison A. Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. II Syntax andsemantics. - Vol. 3: Speech Acts. - New York: Academic Press, 1975.
- P. 143185.135.Demir C., Yagiz O. Hedging strategies in academic discourse: Acomparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English //Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. – 2014. – №158. – P. 260 – 268.136.Dijk T. A. van., Kintsch W. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. –New York: Academic Press, 1983. – 413 p.137.Donhauser K. Der Imperativ im Deutschen: Studien zur Syntax undSemantik des deutschen Modussystems (Beyreuther Beiträge zurSprachwissenschaft, 6). Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1986 – 305s.141138.Fein O., Ganzi J., Giora R., Levi N.A., Sabah H.
On Negation asMitigation: The Case of Negative Irony // Discourse Processes. – 2005. – №39.– P. 81-100.139.Flowerdew J.F. Pragmatic modification on the ‗representative‘ speechact of defining // Journal of Pragmatics, 1991. – №15. – P. 253-264.140.Fraser B. Conversational mitigation // Journal of Pragmatics 4(4). North-Holland: 1980. – p. 341-350.141.Fraser B. Pragmatic Competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenbock,W. Mihatsch & S.
Schneider (eds) New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley:Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010. – p.15-34.142.Gratch J., Mao W., Marsella S., Martinovski B. Mitigation Theory: AnIntegrated Approach [Electronic resource] // The Twenty-Seventh AnnualConference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2005.
– Access mode:http://goo.gl/RTucze. – Title from the screen.143.Grice P. Meaning / P. Grice // The Philosophical Review. – New York:Academic Press, 1957. – Vol. 66. – P.377-388.144.Grice P. Meaning. In: Steinberg & Jokobovits (eds) Semantics: Aninterdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. –Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. – P.53-55.145.Grice P. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P.
& Morgan, J. (eds) Syntaxand semantics 3: Speech Acts. – New York: Academic Press, 1975. – P.41-58.146.Grice P. Presuppositions and Conversational Implicature. In: Cole &Morgan (eds) Radical Pragmatics. – New York: Academic Press, 1981. –P.183-198.147.Hamblin C. L. Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987 – 262p.148.Holmes J. Modifying illocutionary force // Journal of Pragmatics, 1984.– №8. – P.
345-365.142149.House, J., Kasper G. Politeness Markers in English and in German inCoulmas, F. (ed.): Conversational Routines. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, –1981. – p.157-185.150.Hübler A. Understatement and Hedges in English. – Amsterdam andPhiladelphia,PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. – p. 192.151.Hyland K. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles // Hong Kong Journalof Applied Linguistics, 1998.
– pp. 133-136152.Hymes D. Models of the Interaction of languages and Social Life. In:Gumprez J. & Hymes D. (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics – New York: Holt,Rhinehart & Wilson, – 1972. pp. 35-71153.James A.R. Compromisers in English: A Cross-disciplinary approach totheir interpersonal significance // Journal of Pragmatics.
– 1983. – №7. – p.191-206.154.Krämer S. Sprache, Sprechakt, Kommunikation, Suhrkamp Verlag,Frankfurt am Main 2001 – S. 286155.Kempson R. Presupposition, opacity and ambiguity. In: Oh, C. &Dinneen, D. (eds) Syntax and Semantics. – New York: Academic Press, –1979. – №11. – p. 283-291.156.Lakoff G. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzyconcepts. In: Peranteau, P., Levi, J. and Phares, G. (eds.): Papers from theEighth Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society. – Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Press, – 1972. – p.183-228.157.Lakoff R.
The logic of politeness; or, Minding your p's and q's II Papersfrom the Ninth Regional Meeting: Chicago Linguistic Society. - Chicago:University of Chicago, 1973. - P. 292-305.143158.Langner M. Zur kommunikativen Funktion von Abschwächungen:pragma- und soziolinguistische Untersuchungen. – Munster: Nodus-Publ.,1994.– 253 p.159.Leech G.N.
Principles of Pragmatics. – London: Longman, 1983. – 250 p.160.Levinson S. Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, – 1983.– 420p.161.Malinowski B. The problem of meaning. In: Halliday, M. & Hasan, R.Language, context and text: aspects of language in social-semiotic Perspective,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923. pp. 3-5.162.Martinovski B. Framework for analysis of mitigation in courts // Journalof Pragmatics. – 2006. – №38.
– P. 2065-2086.163.Mey J. Pragmatics. – Oxford: Basil Blackwell. – 1993.164.Rawls J. Two concepts of rules. In: Searle, J. (ed.) The philosophy oflanguage: Oxford, Oxford University Press, – 1955. – 41p.165.Ogiermann E. Politeness and indirectness across cultures: A comparisonof English, German, Polish and Russian requests // Journal of PolitenessResearch.
– 2009. – №5. – p. 89-216.166.Schenck-Hamlin W.J. et el A model of properties of compliance-gainingstrategies // communication Quaterly – 1982. – №30. – p. 92-100.167.Schmidt R.W. & Richards J.C. Speech acts and second language learning// Applied Linguistics 1(2). – London: Oxford Uni. Press, 1980. Pp 129-154.168.Searle J. R. Speech Acts. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –1969.169.Searle J.
R. Indirect Speech Acts / J. R. Searle // Syntax and Semantics. –New York, 1975. – Vol. 3: Speech acts. – P. 59–82.170.Searle J. R. A classification of illocutionary Acts. In: Language insociety. – New York, 1979. – Vol. 5. – P. 1–24.144171.Strawson P. F. Intention and Convention in Speech Acts / P. F. Strawson// Logico-Linguistic Papers.
– London, 1971. – P. 149–189.172.Thaler V. Mitigation as modification of illocutionary force // Journal ofPragmatics. – 2012. – №44. – P. 907-919.173.Vanderveken D. Illocutionary Logic and Self-defeating Speech Acts / D.Vanderveken // Ed. by J.R.Searle et al. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatic. –1980. –P.247–273.174.Wierzbicka A.
A semantic metalanguage for a cross-cultural comparisonof speech acts and speech genres II Language in society. - 1985. - Vol. 14. №4.-P. 491-514.175.Wood J. T. Interpersonal Communication. Everyday Encounters / J.T.Wood. – Inc. Thomson Learning, 2004. – 345 p.176.Wunderlich D. Towards an Integrated Theory of Grammatic andPragmatic Meaning / D. Wunderlich // Language in Focus.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
