引導碼為從心理認知角度討論語言語義及語用表現的概念，和概念碼對立，是一種跳脫傳統以話語真值條件為分析媒介的研究嘗試，概念碼編碼概念，引導碼則處理概念內容並選擇處理概念的方式。
引導碼在漢語的研究不多，經過我們對Blakemore（1987, 2002）、Ifantidou-Trouki（1993）、Carston（2002）以及Iten（2005）等分析的整理，發現引導碼普遍出現於連詞及評價副詞中，具備引導聽者找到話語隱含及高層明說義的功能，評價副詞在漢語裡被納入語氣討論，而這個發現讓我們有了重新審視漢語語氣副詞研究的動機，以往學者對語氣的討論總在語氣編碼的框架中，忽略了語氣的引導功能。
本文以語義及語用學的理論架構為基礎，針對漢語語氣副詞重新進行分類，並進一步探討語氣的引導功能，和關聯理論配合，觀察其引導方式對語境假設的影響，最後再將此研究成果應用於華語教學中。
本研究共分為六章，第一章為導論，說明研究動機、研究範圍以及內容架構之說明。第二章為文獻探討，將歷年學者對漢語語氣的研究進行整理，討論以往語態、命題及情態等在漢語語氣分析中所扮演的角色。第三章則根據第二章的討論對語氣副詞進行分類，並進一步建構語氣於引導意義層面的理論概念。第四章為語氣的引導內涵分析，根據作用層面的不同分為隱含引導及高層明說義引導，並進行個別引導意義的比較與討論。第五章以第四章所建立的架構為基礎，配合認知學習理論，針對語氣副詞引導意義的教學給予建議。第六章為結論，總結本文的研究結果，提出後續研究的建議與省思。

When, in the field of utterance interpretation, the psychologically adequate account of the role of the context is being studied, two complemental concepts can be applied: procedural and conceptual encoding. Conceptual encoding studies concepts, whereas procedural encoding focuses on the manipulation of representations. In this study, the latter method – procedural encoding – has been applied.
Analysis of procedural encoding in Chinese being comparatively uncommon, following up the related discussion of Blakemore (1987, 2002), Ifantidou-Trouki (1993), Carston (2002) and Iten (2005), we found that many conjunctions and attitudinal adverbials have procedural meaning. These expressions help the addressee to infer the implicature and higher-level explicature of an utterance. In Chinese, attitudinal adverbials are classified under the category of stance adverbs. These adverbials have rarely been studied from the perspective of procedural meaning.
In this study, we try to apply the theory of semantics and pragmatics on the Chinese stance adverbs. We also use the Relevance theory to analyze the procedural meaning of Chinese stance adverbs, as well as discuss the role these adverbs play in the contextual assumption part of communication. Finally, we have hopes of suggesting a cognitive based learning sequence for Chinese L2 learners.

Aijmer, K. (1996). Swedish Modal Particles in a Contrastive Perspective. Language Sciences. 18, 393-427.
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2004). A Model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: the semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics. 36, 1781-1805.
Biber, D. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2000). Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., Evaluation in text : Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Chafe, W. L. (1986). Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In Chafe, W. L. and Nichols, J., Evidentiality in English and in General (pp. 261-272). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Downing, A. (2001). ‘Surely you knew!’Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language. 8 (2), 253-285.
Eysenck, M. W. and Keane, M. (2000). Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francies Group
Greenbaum, S. (1969). Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longmans.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-50). New York: Academic Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London : Edward Arnold.
Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Ifantidou-Trouki, E. (1993). Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua. 90, 69-90.
Itani-Kauffmann, R. (1990). Explicature and explicit attitude. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. 2, 52-64.
Iten, C. (2005). Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance: The Case of Concessives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.
Jing-Schmidt, Z.（2008）The Manifestation of Emotion: On the Mandarin Chinese Nandao-Interrogation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 36, No.2, 211-234.
Kruisinga, E. (1875). A Handbook of Present-Day English: Part II (4th ed.). Utrecht : Kemink en zoon.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Resources for attitudinal meaning, Evaluative orientations in text semantics. Functions of Language. 5, 1: 33-56.
Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A. (1992). 黃宣範譯。漢語語法。台北市：文鶴。
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005). Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oatley, K. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1992). Basic Emotions, Rationality, and Folk Theory. Cognition and Emotion. 6 (3/4), 201-223.
Oh, C. K. and Dinneen, D. (1979). Syntax and Semantics II: Presupposition. New York: Academic.
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and Modality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals (2nd ed.). New York: Longman Group, Ltd.
Palmer, F. R. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. and Palmer, F. R., Modality in Contemporary English (pp. 1-17). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Rescher, N. (1968). Topics in Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Saeed, J. I. (2003) Semantics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Smith, Sara W., Jucker, Andreas H., 2000. Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. In Andersen, G., Fretheim, T. (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitudes (pp. 207-237). Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
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.
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. (2001). Regularity in semantic change. New York : Cambridge University Press
Ungerer, F. (1997). Emotions and emotional language in English and German news stories. In Niemeier, S. and Dirven, R., The Language of Emotions: Conceptualization, Expression, and Theoretical Foundation (pp. 307-328). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Urmson,J. (1963) Parenthetical verbs. In Caton, C. (Eds), Philosophy and ordinary language (pp. 220-240). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
陳立芬（2002）。現代漢語副詞【才】與【就】的教學語法。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
陳熹（2008）。試論語氣副詞“偏偏”的語義、句法語用。文教資料，1，25-28。
丁險峰（2002）。試論“簡直＋……”結構的句法、語義、語用。語言文字應用，4，84-89。
丁雪妮（2004）。“偏偏”的功能分析。山東省青年管理幹部學院學報，5，99-100。
高書貴（2006）。“幸虧”隱含的轉接功能與語義轄域。天津大學學報（社會科學版），6，424-428。
賀陽（1992）。試論漢語書面語的語氣系統。中國人民大學學報，5。
何兆熊（1999）。新編語用學概要。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
李叢禾（2003）。關聯推導中的程序性意義探析。外語教學，24，5，1-6。
劉月華、潘文娛和和故韡（2005）。實用現代漢語語法。台北市：師大書苑。
羅耀華、齊春紅（2007）。副詞性非主謂句的成句規約──語氣副詞“的確”的個案考察。漢語學習，2，27-35。
呂叔湘（1977）。中國文法要略。台北市。
呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
齊滬揚（2002）。語氣詞與語氣系統。合肥：安徽。
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。
屈承熹（1999）。漢語認知功能語法。台北市：文鶴。
沈家煊（2001）。語言的“主觀性”和“主觀化”。外語教學與研究，4。
史金生（2003）。語氣副詞的範圍、類別和共現順序。中國語文，292，17-31。
蘇英霞（2000）。“難道”句都是反問句嗎？。語文研究，1，56-60。
王峰（2007）。談“難怪∕原來”與“因為∕所以”。語言應用研究，9，38-41。
王力（1987）。中國現代語法。台中市：藍燈文化。
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，21，45-63。
徐子亮（2000）。漢語作為外語教學的認知理論研究。北京：華語教學出版社。
姚曉霞（2007）。從語法角度考察語氣副詞“究竟”。語言應用研究，4，35。
曾毅平（2002）。“居然”如此修飾。修辭學習，6，15-16。
張明瑩（2000）。說“簡直”。漢語學習，1，22-26。
張誼生（2000a）。現代漢語虛詞。上海：華東師範大學出版社。
張誼生（2000b）。評注性副詞功能瑣議。載於呂叔湘（主編）。語法研究和探索（十）(pp.224-242)。北京：商務印書館。