在關聯理論來看，言談交際是「明示－推理」的過程，說話者為了使聽話者更容易理解其交際意圖，除了運用概念表徵（conceptual representation）之外，還常採用各類引導性（procedural）的語言成份來協助聽話者推論，這類語言成份，Blakemore（1987, 2002）稱之為引導碼（procedural encoding），它能對聽話者推導話語的含意或交際意義起制約作用，以期達到準確的理解。本文認為，重述標記（reformulation marker）也是其中一類，說話者可藉由重述標記引導出更貼近說話者本意，或者是更貼近於聽話者認知的話語，以達到交際目的。
有別於傳統上以銜接、連貫為主的語篇分析模式，本文的理論架構從關聯理論切入，以Blakemore所提出的引導碼理論為核心，並且結合Andersen（2001）的語用標記三分論，以及會話分析與禮貌原則（Politeness principle）等理論，多角度探討重述標記的語用功能。
在重述標記分類上，以關聯理論的語境假設（contextual assumption）與語境效果（contextual effect）為著眼點，參考Cuenca and Bach（2007）與江庭宜（2009）的分類，而將其分為擴展性（expansion）、簡縮性（compression）、修正性（modification）三類，並以重述功能強，且極具代表性的「也就是說」、「換句話說」為例進行分析。
由於「也就是說」、「換句話說」在獨白語篇與互動語篇中發揮的作用有明顯差異，因此分別從這兩個角度分析，尤其在互動層面，本文設計了「誘發－自發」綜合式訪談（elicited and spontaneous interview），藉以檢測兩者在互動語境下的作用，結果發現，「也就是說」與「換句話說」的關注焦點不同，對對方意見的認同度以及考慮對方面子的程度都有明顯不同。

In Relevance Theory, communication is an “ostensive-inferential” process. A speaker, in addition to conceptual representation, would also use various procedural elements to help the hearer’s inference. This kind of procedural element is called by Blakemore (1987, 2002): “procedural encoding”. It can restrain the inference process of connotation or communicative meaning, so as to promote accurate understanding. We think that reformulation markers are of this kind. A speaker, by means of a reformulation marker, can instruct an inference to either get closer to the speaker’s intention or to the hearer’s cognition, hence making a successful communication.
Unlike traditional analyses that focus on cohesion and coherence in discourse, we start from Relevance Theory and set Blakemore’s procedural encoding theory as the core of this research. In addition to that, Andersen(2001)’s tripartite analysis of pragmatic markers, as well as conversation analysis, and the Politeness Principle are also adopted to probe into the pragmatic function of reformulation markers.
We categorize reformulation markers in terms of contextual assumption and contextual effect, along with categorization of Cuenca and Bach (2007) and Jiang (2009), into three groups: expansion, compression, and modification. We select yejiushishuo (that is to say) and huanjuhuashuo (in other words ), the most versatile markers as our focus.
We will analyze these two markers in monologic (non-dynamic) and dialogic (dynamic) text, for the major differences stem from these uses. In order to facilitate this analysis, we formulate an “elicited and spontaneous interview” where the interviewee will be conversing with me in an instructed and spontaneous way. Based on our discovery, the major differences lie between these two are: (dis)agreement with interlocutor, the level of caring about “face”.

中文部分
司紅霞（2009）。《現代漢語插入語研究》。長春：東北師範大學出版社。
江庭宜（2009）。《漢語「說」類引導碼之分類和語用功能分析》。台北：國立台灣師大華研所碩士論文。
何兆熊（2002）。《新編語用學概要》。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
何兆熊（2005）。《語用學文獻選讀》。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
何自然（1988）。《語用學概論》。湖南：湖南教育出版社。
何自然（2006）。《認知語用學－言語交際的認知研究》。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
呂叔湘（1980）。《現代漢語八百詞》。北京：商務印書館。
李濤（2007）。〈漢英插入語對比研究〉，《西華師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版）》(2) 51-53
李叢禾（2003）。〈漢語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〉，《漢語研究》，18卷特刊 ，323-25624(5)，1-7。
沈萍（2009）。《現代漢語篇章中的重述研究》。上海：華東師範大學碩士論文。
席建國（2009）。《英漢語用標記語意義和功能認知研究》。杭州：浙江大學出版社。
常娜（2009）。〈換言連接成分「即」的研究〉，《雲南師範大學學報（對外漢語教學與研究版）》(7) 3
張誼生（2000）。《現代漢語副詞研究》。上海：學林出版社。
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。
郭志良（1999）。《現代漢語轉折詞語研究》。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
陳俊光（2007b）。《對比分析與教學應用》。臺北：文鶴出版有限公司。
陳穎（2009）。《現代漢語傳信範疇研究》。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
彭玉琴（2008）。《漢語語氣副詞引導碼探析》。台北：國立台灣師大華研所碩士論文。
董秀芳（2004）。《漢語的詞庫與詞法》。北京：北京大學出版社。
熊學亮（2007）。《語言使用中的推理》。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
趙元任（1980）。《中國話的文法》。香港：香港中文大學出版社。（丁邦新譯）
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（2006）。《實用現代漢語語法》。北京：商務印書館。
劉虹（2004）。《會話結構分析》。北京：北京大學出版社。

英文部分
Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Archakis, A. (2001). On discourse markers: Evidence from modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1235-1261.
Biber, D. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.
Biq, Yung-O〔畢永峨〕(2003) 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.( 2007). Or- parenthicals, that is- parenthicals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of Linguistics. 43:311–339.
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 Linguistic. 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.(2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning : the semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
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. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (pp. 29-39). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Brinton, L. (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.
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. & Pennock, B. (2005). Discourse markers of reformulation from the perspecive of grammaticalization. Perspectivas Interdisciplinares de la Lingüística Aplicada, 89-100
Del Saz, M. (2007). English discourse markers of reformulation. Bern: Peter Lang.
Feng, G. (2008). Pragmatic markers in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(10), 1687-1718.
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.
Fraser, B., & Del Saz, M. (2003). Reformulation in English Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Grundy, Peter (2000). Doing Pragmatics. London: Amold
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. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K.(1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1994). A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Maruenda Bataller, S. (2002). Reformulations and relevance theory pragmatics: The case of TV interviews. Valencia: University of Valencia, Servicio de Publicaciones.
Murillo, S. (2004). A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(11), 2059-2068.
Quirk, R. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London; NY: Longman.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Wang, Y., Tsai, P., & Yang, Y. (2009). Objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity: Evidence from qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang (‘in fact’) in spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics.