Sperber 和Wilson (1985)從認知角度提出的關聯理論將語言可表達的意義分為兩種，即主要命題信息內容，和指引聽話者該如何處理這些信息的後設信息。兩種信息相互對立、相互定義，而後者這些表示話語應被解讀的方式的詞語可以預告或提示聽話者接下來之話語和對話參與者的思維應進行的「方向」，為其節省解讀話語時所必須花費的推理心力(efforts)。Blakemore (1987)將這兩種信息分別命名為「概念意義(conceptual meaning)」和「引導意義(procedural meaning)」，並進一步主張言談連接詞(discourse connectives)如so, but, after all等可以直接編碼三種認知效果而具備引導功能，且將這些語言形式稱為「引導碼(procedural encoding)」。引導碼可以在話語的顯義(explicature)或者隱義(implicature)層面作用，與說話者的主觀性有關。關聯理論的引導碼是本論文的出發點，但我們對關聯理論中將語言形式對意義的編碼截然二分的作法持保留態度，因為這種說法並不符合語言普遍的漸變性(gradient)語法化現象(grammaticalization)，顯然有必要作進一步的修正。
中文動詞「說」由於在語言中的高頻使用，在隱喻意義上和思維的相似性，與其後設性指涉言談行為的特徵，使其出現顯著的語法化和主觀化現象。「說」從一個表示說話動作的動詞逐漸演變出認知義，在詞性上更虛化為句補詞和表示主觀態度的句首和句末助詞功能。學者們也發現「說」與其他語言成分逐漸凝結為固定結構並產生語用功能，如「我說」、「你說」(林雪娥2000)、「別說」(董秀芳2007)等。這些詞語帶有主觀性，可以引導聽話者更容易推論出話語的關聯性，因此我們可將它們視為帶有引導意義的引導碼。在日常溝通中，事實上我們上使用了非常多的「說」類引導碼 (董秀芳2003, 司紅霞2006)，但目前卻沒有研究根據比較完整的理論背景來對「說」類引導碼加以分類和分析。
本論文將在前人研究的基礎上，從關聯理論的角度出發並以語法化理論調整引導碼的概念，同時參考言談標記相關研究以及關聯理論中對話語意義的分類，整理出中文「說」類引導碼的分類，最後從中選擇幾個項目，進一步蒐集相關語料後觀察並描述它們在語境中發揮的語用功能。

In Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1985), the meanings that can be conveyed by languages are divided into two complementary kinds: ‘conceptual meanings’ and ‘procedural meanings’. The latter kind can give pre-indications to the hearer the expected “direction” about the following utterance and about the proceeding of the thoughts of the interlocutors, and the language forms that encode procedural meanings ‘procedural encodings’. Procedural encodings can function at the explicature level or the implicature level of an utterance, and they are closely related to speaker’s subjectivity. Procedural encodings serve as the starting point of our current study, yet we think that the absolute dichotomy between the conceptual and procedural encodings ignores the semantic gradient developments/changes that have been proved to be prevalent in many different languages. Thus, the theory of grammaticalization should also be taken into account to make the semantic encoding schema proposed in Relevance Theory more powerful.
In many studies, the Chinese verb “shuo (say)” has been proved to be grammaticalized and subjectivized through metaphorical uses and pragmatic inferences. Semantically, “shuo (say)” develops epistemic meanings from its original meaning denoting the action of speaking; and, functionary, it develops as a sentence-initial and final particle besides the original verb function. “Shuo (say)” is also gradually forming new expresions through frequent co-occurance with certain linguistic elements, many of which are highly pragmatic-oriented.
The current study starts from ‘procedural encoding’, amends it with grammaticalization, taking discussions related to discourse markers as reference, and categorizes the Chinese “shuo (say)” procedural encodings. To further illustrate their pragmatic functions, we will also pick out some of these expressions, examine related data in linguistic corpus, and observe how they work in real communication.

書籍和期刊論文
Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2004). A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1781-1806.
Andersen, G. (2000). The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, , 17–38.
Archakis, A. (2001). On discourse markers: Evidence from modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1235-1261.
Astruc, L., & Nolan, F. (2007). Variation in the intonation of sentential adverbs in English and Catalan. In T. Riad, & C. Gussenhoven (Eds.), Tones and tunes: Typological studies in word and sentence prosody (pp. 233-262). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bach, K.. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy. 22(4), 327-366.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), 107-136.
Biq, Y. O. (1989). Ye as manifested on three discourse planes: Polysemy or abstraction. Functionalism and Chinese Grammar, South Orange, NJ: Chinese Language Teachers Association, , 1-18.
Biq, Y. O. (2001). The Grammaticalization of Jiushi and Jiushishuo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 53-74.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford; New York, USA: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford, OX, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1993). The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature, 2(2), 101.
Blakemore, D. (1996). Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics, 32, 325-347.
Blakemore, D. (1997). Restatement and exemplification:A relevance theoratic reassessment of elaboration. Pragmatics and Cognition, 5(1), 1-19.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning : the semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (2008). Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics, 32(02), 325-347.
Blass, R. (2000). Particles, prepositional attitude and mutual manifestness. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, , 38-52.
Bordería, S. P. (2008). Do discourse markers exist? on the treatment of discourse markers in relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(8), 1411-1434.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). 2.1 Introduction: Pragmatic markers. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (pp. 29-39). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge, UK; NY: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. J. (2008). Introduction: Comment clause, parenthesis, and pragmatic markers. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development (pp. 1-9). USA: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (1998). The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, (10), 1-30.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Wiley: Blackwell.
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constrains on information flow. in R. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, Typological Studies in Languages, #11., Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chang, M. H. (1998). The discourse functions of Taiwanese kong in relation to its grammaticalization. Selected Papers From the Second International Symposium on Language in Taiwan, 111-127. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross linguistic perspective. NY: Oxford University Press.
Cuenca, M. J. (2003). Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1069-1093.
Cuenca, M. J., & Bach, C. (2007). Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 149.
Del Saz, M. (2002). An analysis of English discourse markers of reformulation. (PhD dissertation, València: Universitat de València).
Edwards, D., & Fasulo, A. (2006). " To be honest": Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 343-376.
Espinal, M. T. (1991). The representation of disjunct constituents. Language, 67(4), 726-762.
Feng, G. (2008). Pragmatic markers in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(10), 1687-1718.
Frajzyngier, Z. (1991). The de dicto domain in language. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, ed. by Traugott, E.C., Heine, B. 219-251. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383-398.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167-190.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Fraser, B. (2005). Towards a theory of discourse markers. Approaches to Discourse Particles, , 189-204.
Fujii, S. (2000). Incipient decategorization of MONO and grammaticalization of speaker attitude in Japanese discourse. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 85-118.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
Geeraets, D. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press US.
González-Álvarez, M. D. (1996). Epistemic disjuncts in early modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(2), 219-256.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech arts, Cole et al. 41-58.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Gülich, E., & Kotschi, T. (1995). Discourse production in oral communication: A study based on French. Aspects of Oral Communication, , 30-66.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Chapter 5: Conjunction. Cohesion in English (pp. 227-251). London: Longman.
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. Approaches to Grammaticalization, 1, 17-35.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge [England]; New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Hsieh, F., & Huang, S. (2005). Grammar, construction, and social action: A study of qishi construction. Language and Linguistics, 6(4), 599-634.
Huang, S. (1982). On the (almost perfect) identity of speech and thought: Evidence from Chinese dialects. Fourteenth International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, 171-186.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ifantidou, E. (2000). Procedural encoding of explicatures by the modern Greek particle taha. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 119-144.
Ifantidou, E. (2001). Chapter 5: Sentence adverbials. Evidentials and relevance (pp. 97-118) John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ifantidou-Trouki, E. (1993). Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua, 90, 69-90.
Imai, K. (1998). Intonation and relevance. Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Eds. R. Carston & S. Uchida. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69-86.
Itani, R. (1995). A relevance-based analysis of Lakoffian hedges: sort of, a typical and technically. UCLWPL, (7), 87-105.
Iten, C. (2000). ‘Non-thruth conditional’meaning, relevance and concessives. University of London PhD thesis.
Iten, C. (2005). Linguistic meaning, truth conditions and relevance: the case of concessives. NY: Palgrave Macmillan
Izutsu, M. N. (2008). Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 646-675.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.
Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers: Introduction. Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 1-12) John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508.
Lee, H. K. (2002). Towards a new typology of connectives with special reference to conjunction in English and Korean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 851-866.
Lin, H. 林雪娥. (2004). Grammaticalization of the reported speech frames wo shuo and ni shuo in Mandarin conversation. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 30(2), 157-182.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 142–175.
Matsui, T. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of a Japanese discourse marker dakara (so/in other words): A unitary account. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 867-891.
Murillo, S. (2004). A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(11), 2059-2068.
Nicolle, S. (1998). A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 1-35.
Nicolle, S., & Nicolle, S. (2000). Markers of general interpretive use in Amharic and Swahili. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 173-188.
Palmer. F. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge Unitversity Press.
Powell, M. J. (1992). The systematic development of correlated interpersonal and metalinguistic uses in stance adverbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 75-110.
Quirk, R. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London; NY: Longman.
Recanati, F. (1987). Meaning and Force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rouchota, V. (1994). On indefinite descriptions. Journal of linguistics. 30(2), 441-475.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schreiber, P. A. (1972). Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry, (3), 321-347.
Searle, J. R., D. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shloush, S. (1998). A unified account of Hebrew bekicur 'in short': Relevance theory and discourse structure considerations. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 57, 61-82.
Smith, S. W., & Jucker, A. H. (2000). Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 207–237.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell; Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
Su, L. I. 蘇以文. (2002). I say what I mean: Between speech and thought. 3rd Symposium on Chinese Lexical Semantics, Taipei. 1-4.
Su, L. I. 蘇以文. (2004). Subjectification and the use of the complementizer SHUO. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 30(1), 19-40.
Suzuki, S. (2000). Surprise and animosity: The use of the copula da in quotative sentences in Japanese. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 239-253.
Swan, T. (1988). Sentence adverbials in English: A synchronic and diachronic investigation. Oslo: Novus.
Takeuchi, M. (1998). Conceptual and procedural encoding: Cause-consequence conjunctive particles in Japanese. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 81-104.
Traugott, E. (1995). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization at http://www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse
Tseronis, A. (2009). Qualifying standpoints.stance adverbs as a presentational device for managing the burden of proof. (PhD., LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Utrecht). 231.
Urmson, J. O. (1966). 'Parenthetical Verbs', in A. Flew (ed), Essays in Conceptual Analysis. London: MacMillan.
Wang, Y. F. 王萸芳 (2003). Thinking as saying: Shuo ('say') in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences, 25(5), 457-488.
Wang, Y. F., & Tsai, P. H. (2007). Textual and contextual contrast connection: A study of Chinese contrastive markers across different text types. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1775-1815.
Wang, Y. F., Tsai, P. H., & Yang, Y. T. (2009). Objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity: Evidence from qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang (‘in fact’) in spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics.
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 23(2), 259-284.
Wilson, D. (1992). Pragmatic theory. Unpublished lecture notes. London. (cf. Archakis 2001:1244, 1260)
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1-2), 1-25.
Yoshimura, A. (1988). Procedural semantics and metalinguistic negation. Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Ed. by Carston, r. & Uchida S. 105-122.
中國社會科學院 語言研究所 辭典編輯室. (2002). 現代漢語辭典 (第四版). 北京: 商務印書館.
付琨. (2008). 后置詞“來說”的篇章功能與詞類歸屬. 江西社會科學, 171-174.
付琨. (2008). 由言說義后置詞構成的介詞框架考察. 內江師范學院學報, 23(11), 60-63.
何兆熊. (2000). 新編語用學概要. 上海: 上海外語教育出版社.
劉月華. (1986). 對話中 "說" "想" "看"的一種特殊用法. 中國語文, (3), 168-172.
劉月華, 潘文娛, & 故韡. (1996). 實用現代漢語語法(繁體字版). 台北:師大書苑.
劉月華 主編. (1998). 趨向補語通釋. 北京: 北京語言大學出版社.
劉芳. (2009). 析言說義動詞"說"的語法化. 語文學刊, (2), 50-52.
司紅霞. (2006). “說”類插入語的主觀性功能探析. 語言文字應用, (s2), 203-206.
吳中偉. (1997). 論副詞"再"的"推延"義——兼論加強對漢語副詞的語用研究. 世界漢語教學, (3), 18-25.
周威兵. (2005). 關聯詞“再說”功能淺議. 語言文字應用, (9), 171-173.
孟琮. (1982). 口語 "說"字小集. 中國語文, (5), 337-346.
席建國, & 劉冰. (2008). 語用標記語功能認知研究. 浙江大學學報（人文社會科學版）, 38(4), 190-199.
常玉鐘. (1993). 口語習用語功能辭典. 北京: 北京語言學院出版社.
廖秋忠. (1986). 现代汉语篇章中的连接成分. 中国语文, 6, 413-427.
張誼生. (2002). "就是" 的篇章銜接功能及其語法化歷程. 世界漢語教學, (3), 80-90.
彭玉琴. (2008). 漢語語氣副詞引導碼探析. (碩士, 國立臺灣師範大學 華語文教學研究所). 124.
徐優平. (2006). 話語標記語在法院調解過程中的作用 -- 關聯理論角度的分析. 修辭學習, (4), 52-55.
成海濤. (2006). "就＋是"的句法特質及"就是"的形成機制分析. 佛山科學技術學院學報 (社會科學版), 24(6), 32-35.
李勝梅. (2004). “話說回來”的語用分析. 修辭學習, (3), 29-32.
李從禾. (2003). 關聯推導中的程序性意義探析. 外語教學, 24(5), 1-7.
李櫻. (2000). 漢語研究中的語用面向. 漢學研究第 18 卷特刊, 18(特刊), 323-356.
李濤. (2007). 漢英插入語對比研究. 西華師范大學學報(哲學社會科學版), (2), 51-53.
梁銀峰. (2009). 現代漢語"X來"式合成詞溯源. 語言科學, 8(4), 412-421.
沈家煊. (2001). 語言的"主觀性"和"主觀化". 外語教學與研究:外國語文雙月刊, 33(004), 268-275.
洪慎杏. (2008). 現代漢語複句分類與關聯詞語教學--以「而」為例. (碩士, 國立台灣師範大學 華語文教學研究所). 117.
游欣慈. (2005). 漢語副詞「還」之教學語法. (碩士, 國立台灣師範大學 華語文教學研究所). 161.
湯廷池. (1982). 國語變形語法研究. 台北: 台北學生書局.
王婷. (2005). 淺析副詞"再". 晉中學院學報, 22(1), 13-14.
白荃. (1993). “而且”和“再說”. 北京師範大學學報（社會科學版）, (4), 104-109.
盛新華, & 邱野. (2009). "就是說" 所標示的A、B之間的語義關係及語用特點. 延安大學學報(社會科學版), 31(1), 24-27.
繆素琴, & 蔡龍權. (2007). 會話應答結構中話語標記語的語用特徵. 上海師範大學學報 (哲學社會科學版 ), 36(6), 119-125.
羅耀華, & 牛利. (2009). "再說"的語法化. 語言教學與研究, (1), 73-80.
芜崧. (2002). 也說“再說”. 漢字文化, (4), 63-64.
董秀芳. (2003). “X說”的詞匯化. 語言科學, (2), 46-57.
董秀芳. (2004). “是”的進一步語法化:由虛詞到詞內成分. 當代語言學, (1), 35-44.
董秀芳. (2007). 詞彙化與話語標記的形成. 世界漢語教學, 1(1), 50-61.
蘇以文. (2001). Metaphorical models of thought and speech 思維與語言的譬喻模式 (專題研究計畫結果報告 No. NSC 89-2411-H-002-076) 行政院國家科學委員會.
謝佳玲. (2006). 漢語情態詞的語意界定: 語料庫為本的研究. 中國語文研究, 1, 45-63.
邢欣, & 白水振. (2008). 語篇銜接語的關聯功能及語法化. 漢語學習, (3), 15-21.
郎曉秋. (2008). "再"與"還"的對比分析. 語文學刊, (7), 102-104.
鄭良偉. (1991). 台語與台灣國語的子句結構標誌「講」與「看」. 世界華文教育協進會, , 49-71.
陳信華. (2006). 中文補語標記及言談標記詞「說」的言談功能 Discourse functions of Chinese complementizer and discourse marker shuo. (碩士, 國立臺灣師範大學, 英語學系). 117.
陳昌來, & 劉丹毅. (2009). 介詞框架“對/對于……來說/而言”的形成和語法化機制. 上海師範大學對外漢語學院, (1), 83-89.
陳明芳. (2006). 插入語的語義介入. 外語學刊, (3), 68-73.
陳菀雯. (2006). 中文 “就是”的研究：就語意及語用觀點 A study of mandarin Chinese jiushi 'that is': From the perspectives of semantics and pragmatics. (Master, 靜宜大學, 英國語文學系). 106.
顏紅菊. (2006). 話語標記的主觀性和語法化——從“真的”的主觀性和語法化談起. 湖南科技大學學報(社會科學版), 9(6), 80-85.
馮光武. (2004). 漢語語用標記語的語義、語用分析. 現代外語季刊, 27(1), 24-31.
駱美嬋. (2008). 主謂插入語的語法化和主觀化. 企業家天地下半月刊(理論版), (2), 51-53.
高紅娜. (2004). “按”“照”及其他. 四川大學學報(哲學社會科學版), (S1), 297-298.
齊滬揚, & 丁嬋嬋. (2006). 反詰類語氣副詞的否定功能分析. 漢語學習, (5), 3-13.

語料庫和網路資源
中文詞彙特性速描系統 http://wordsketch.ling.sinica.edu.tw/
中央研究院 古漢語語料庫
http://qqq.sinca.edu.tw/~tibe/2-words/old-words/
(已改為中央研究院 漢籍電子文獻 翰典全文檢索系統
http://hanji.sinica.edu.tw/index.html)
Google 網路搜索引擎 http://www.google.com.tw/webhp?rls=ig
教育部重編國語辭典修訂本 http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/