中国英语教师课堂元话语研究
|
摘要
元话语通常被称为“关于话语的话语”,其主要作用是标示话语组织结构、表明交际者对话语的观点及受众的态度。元话语不仅仅是一个语言现象,而且也是一种修辞和语用手段,尤其是常常出现学术口语语篇和学术书面语篇中。对于元话语的研究,在话语分析、语言教育、语用学以及其它研究领域引起了广泛的关注(Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore, 1989; Cheng, 1997; Intaraprawat, 1998; Hyland, 1998; 2005; Ifantidou, 2001; 2005; ?del, 2006)。但是绝大多数此类研究是针对于书面语篇进行的,并且对元话语功能的探讨也都是限定在某一特定的元话语和与之相对应的语篇或人际功能范围之内。
然而,迄今为止,关于元话语在学术口语中作用的研究却很少见,尤其是关于英语课堂教学中教师元话语的研究更是寥寥无几。此外,以功能-语用和二语习得理论为基础的理论框架对英语为外语的口语语篇中的元话语及其在连续语段中的运用和解释也很罕见。近年来有过一些对于英语为母语者的学术讲座中的元话语研究(Mauranen, 2001; Pérez-Llantada, 2006; Aguilar,2008; Hu, 2008; ?del,2010)。但主要是讨论语篇功能对理解学术讲座语篇的作用。以最新的关于学术口语语篇中元话语的研究成果之一为例,?del (2010)通过对比学术口语语篇和学术书面语篇中的人称元话语,归纳总结了人称元话语的23种语篇功能。值得注意的是,他建议今后要对学术口语语篇中的元话语行为及其在语篇中所发挥的教育教学功能,尤其是对英语为非本民族人所带来的益处进行深入研究。他倡导所有使用学术口语或者学术书面语的说话人或作者要熟悉掌握元话语所表达的修辞行为和惯用的语言形式,以此加强对语篇的理解和生成。
Hyland(2005)以人际意义为出发点,提出了元话语的人际意义模式及其对元话语的两个方面的分类---交际元话语和互动元话语。依据Hyland的元话语模式及分类,以Halliday的系统功能语言学关于语言纯理功能之说以及语用学和二语习得理论为研究基础,与前人把元话语标记看做为孤立的个体不同,本研究通过对外语教师课堂话语语料库进行考察,试图为解释外语课堂教师元话语的功能---语用---二语习得的多维视角研究提供理论框架。本研究的目的包括解释元话语手段与其相关的语境特征相结合所具有的人际意义潜势,尤其是揭示特定种类的元话语手段在学术口语体语类中所体现的多重功能,为解释外语课堂教师元话语手段在相对广阔的语言环境中通过其相互协调和相互作用来实现其多功能性提供指导性框架,不同于前人对元话语所采取的态度即视元话语标记为孤立的个体,由此扩展元话语的研究领域。鉴于此,本研究设计将围绕以下问题进行:
1)元话语是否普遍存在于外语教师课堂话语之中?各类元话语在外语教师课堂话语中的使用情况如何?
2)元话语的出现是否可以通过以功能--语用和二语习得理论为基础,在以Hyland的人际意义元话语模式为蓝本进行修改的框架之内得到解释?
3)元话语在外语课堂教学中所体现的功能如何?
4)除了理论启示外,本研究是否可以提供外语教育方面的启示?具体内容是什么?
为了能够提供适合开展研究调查的语料资源,本研究以来自于国内6所大学的24名英语教师的英语专业国家级精品课教学录像为语料来源,对其进行转写自行建立了小型语料库(共计90,435词),并且主要采用‘AntConc 3.2.2w (Windows) 2008’这一检索软件进行了词条检索和频次统计。
本研究对10类子项元话语手段出现的频次进行了定量分析,结果表明元话语在教师课堂话语中普遍存在,即每千个词中有196.47个元话语出现,其中互动类元话语为143.42个,交际类元话语为53.05个,分别占元话语总数的73%和27%。另外,研究数据结果显示:介入标记应用频次最高,即每千个词中就出现90.10个,几乎占元话语总数的一半;其次是过渡标记,即每千个词中出现34.81个,占元话语总数的17.72;之后是模糊语(22.47, 11.44%)、结构标记(12.17, 6.19%)、增强语(14.01, 7.13%)、自称语(10.84, 5.52%)、语码注释语(4.90, 2.49%)、态度标记(4.00, 2.04%)、回指标记(0.81, 0.41%)和言据标记(0.36, 0.18%)。
同时,本研究通过对语料的定性分析,分别从元话语在微观和宏观、静态和动态层面进行研究,发现元话语的功能在学术口语话语中的表现是多样化的。在较为广阔的语言环境内,元话语手段通过相互协调和相互作用所发挥的多功能性在经过修改的框架内得到了解释,具体表现为语言的交换功能和语言的互动功能,前者包括标明由论点到论据之间的过渡、由传递知识向发布指示之间的转变、由交代事实向得出暂定结论之间的转变和由质疑向解释说明之间的转变;后者包括达成合作交流、建立礼貌和保全面子的氛围、促使有效的‘可理解性输入’和互动的形成;从而通过具有互动倾向的大学课堂话语独白引起外语学习者对‘可理解性输入’的注意和吸收,
从而培养外语学习者的语用意识和交际能力。
研究发现这一基于语料库的外语教师课堂元话语研究为元话语的研究提供了功能、语用和二语习得等多维度研究视角,将元话语在学术书面语篇的研究拓展至以英语为外语的学术口语语篇的研究领域。本研究为提高外语课堂的教学质量与效果、促使外语课堂教师话语有效地进行‘可理解性输入’、培养外语学习者的元话语意识和策略、增强学习者的语用能力起着积极地促进作用。除此之外,本研究在优化教师话语质量和掌握语料库研究方法方面起到极大作用,具体体现在为实施外语教师发展培训提供了崭新的研究视角与培训内容。
Metadiscourse plays an important role in constructing discourse, expressing the speaker’s or writer’s personalities, attitudes and social relations. It is generally referred to as‘discourse about discourse’or‘talk about talk’. Metadiscourse, a linguistic phenomenon and a rhetorical and pragmatic strategy, occurs in everyday language, especially in spoken or written academic English. Studies of metadiscourse have drawn vast attention to discourse analysis, language education, pragmatic studies and many other research fields, which are mainly anchored in written discourse (e.g., Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore, 1989; Cheng, 1997; Intaraprawat, 1998; Hyland, 1998; 2005; Ifantidou, 2001; 2005; ?del, 2006). In addition, the treatment of metadiscourse tends to focus on very specific categories and link one category with one function, either textual or interpersonal.
Research into metadiscourse in spoken academic English, especially in English-for-non-native-language speakers’spoken academic English, such as in EFL teaching classroom discourse has remained largely unexplored (e.g., Mauranen, 2001; Pérez-Llantada, 2006; Aguilar , 2008; Hu, 2008; ?del, 2010). Furthermore, few investigations are framed under functional-pragmatic and second language acquisition theoretical foundations for accounting for the utilization and interpretation of metadiscourse in a broad discourse clustering. Although, recently some researchers have studied metadiscourse in academic lectures, they have been inclined to focus on discourse functions. Take a newly research done by ?del ( 2010 ) for example. He proposes the taxonomy of personal metadiscourse in academic lectures, which consists of 23 discourse functions. However, it is worth noticing that he suggests there should be potential analysis of metadiscoursive acts and their wording to be packaged pedagogically, especially for the benefit of non-native speakers of English. He advocates that“anyone using spoken and written academic English needs to be intimately familiar with the rhetorical acts and recurrent linguistic patterns involved in metadiscourse, both for comprehension and for production”(2010:94). On the other hand, it is clear that EFL teachers’classroom discourse is crucially important in terms of spoken academic discourse for non-native speakers of English, for its function as a teaching medium as well as a language input in EFL teaching and learning. So the research into metadiscourse in EFL classroom teaching is significant.
The present qualitative and corpus-based study, which is done in the light of Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse and his interactive and interactional division of metadiscourse and based on metafunctions of language proposed by Halliday, pragmatic theories and second language acquisition (SLA) theories, mainly attempts to propose a framework of EFL teachers’metadiscourse in classroom teaching. This study attempts to account for interpersonal meaning potential of metadiscourse with reference to relevant contextual features. Moreover, different from the previous studies of metadiscourse which treat specific metadiscourse markers separately, this study explores the multifunctionality of EFL teachers’metadiscourse markers in classroom teaching, especially that of the cooperation and interplay among various metadiscourse markers in a broad co-text, so as to broaden the scope of metadiscourse studies.
Therefore, this study is designed to explore answers to the following questions:
1) Is metadiscourse pervasive in EFL teachers’classroom discourse? How are metadiscourse markers used in EFL classroom teaching?
2) Can the occurrence of metadiscourse in EFL teachers’classroom discourse be elaborated in the modified framework of Hyland’s interpersonal model of metadiscourse under functional-pragmatic and SLA theoretical foundations? And if so, how can its occurrence be demonstrated from this perspective?
3) What are the functions of metadiscourse in EFL classroom teaching?
4) Besides theoretical implications,does this study have any pedagogical implications? And what are they?
In order to provide an appropriate resource for investigation, the corpus of 24 EFL university teachers’classroom teaching transcripts is built. Through quantitative analyses of the occurrences of ten subcategories of metadiscourse markers in EFL teachers’classroom discourse, the results show that 196.47 occurrences per thousand words of metadiscourse markers in corpus State-Level Quality Courses (SLQC), which falls into interactional dimension and interactive dimension of metadiscourse, with 143.42 interactional metadiscourse markers occurrences per thousand words and 53.05 interactive dimension metadiscourse markers occurrences per thousand words respectively. Meanwhile, the former dimension takes 73 percent and the latter is 27 percent of the total occurrences of metadiscourse markers respectively. Additionally, it is revealed that among the ten categories of metadiscourse markers, engagement markers rank the highest frequency with 90.10 occurrences per thousand words, taking nearly half part of the total metadiscourse markers. Transition markers rank the second highest frequency with 34.81 occurrences per thousand words, taking 17.72 percent of the total metadiscourse. These are followed by hedges (22.47, 11.44%), frame markers (12.17, 6.19%), boosters (14.01, 7.13%), self mentions (10.84, 5.52%), code glosses (4.90, 2.49%), attitude markers (4.00, 2.04%), endophoric markers (0.81, 0.41%) and evidentials (0.36, 0.18%).
On the other hand, through qualitative analysis, this study finds metadiscourse markers embody multiple functions in creating an interaction-oriented monologue of non-native speakers’spoken academic English. Within the modified framework of EFL teachers’classroom metadiscourse, the multifunctionality of metadiscourse markers through their cooperation and interplay in EFL classroom teaching is operationalized in a broad co-text. It is found that metadiscourse markers carry out multi-dimensional functions, particularly transactional function and interactional function, which the former consists of sub-functions of signaling transition from a thesis statement to a supporting evidence, shifting from knowledge transmission to directives, from reporting truths to tentative assertion and from questioning to expounding, and the latter consists of sub-functions of achieving cooperative communication and interaction, establishing politeness and face-saving atmosphere, facilitating efficient‘comprehensible input’, motivating notice and promoting interaction.
In conclusion, this corpus-based study of EFL teachers’metadiscourse provides us with multiple-dimensional analysis of metadiscourse in EFL classroom teaching as well as theoretical and pedagogical suggestions and implications in EFL teaching, learning and teacher-development program.
然而,迄今为止,关于元话语在学术口语中作用的研究却很少见,尤其是关于英语课堂教学中教师元话语的研究更是寥寥无几。此外,以功能-语用和二语习得理论为基础的理论框架对英语为外语的口语语篇中的元话语及其在连续语段中的运用和解释也很罕见。近年来有过一些对于英语为母语者的学术讲座中的元话语研究(Mauranen, 2001; Pérez-Llantada, 2006; Aguilar,2008; Hu, 2008; ?del,2010)。但主要是讨论语篇功能对理解学术讲座语篇的作用。以最新的关于学术口语语篇中元话语的研究成果之一为例,?del (2010)通过对比学术口语语篇和学术书面语篇中的人称元话语,归纳总结了人称元话语的23种语篇功能。值得注意的是,他建议今后要对学术口语语篇中的元话语行为及其在语篇中所发挥的教育教学功能,尤其是对英语为非本民族人所带来的益处进行深入研究。他倡导所有使用学术口语或者学术书面语的说话人或作者要熟悉掌握元话语所表达的修辞行为和惯用的语言形式,以此加强对语篇的理解和生成。
Hyland(2005)以人际意义为出发点,提出了元话语的人际意义模式及其对元话语的两个方面的分类---交际元话语和互动元话语。依据Hyland的元话语模式及分类,以Halliday的系统功能语言学关于语言纯理功能之说以及语用学和二语习得理论为研究基础,与前人把元话语标记看做为孤立的个体不同,本研究通过对外语教师课堂话语语料库进行考察,试图为解释外语课堂教师元话语的功能---语用---二语习得的多维视角研究提供理论框架。本研究的目的包括解释元话语手段与其相关的语境特征相结合所具有的人际意义潜势,尤其是揭示特定种类的元话语手段在学术口语体语类中所体现的多重功能,为解释外语课堂教师元话语手段在相对广阔的语言环境中通过其相互协调和相互作用来实现其多功能性提供指导性框架,不同于前人对元话语所采取的态度即视元话语标记为孤立的个体,由此扩展元话语的研究领域。鉴于此,本研究设计将围绕以下问题进行:
1)元话语是否普遍存在于外语教师课堂话语之中?各类元话语在外语教师课堂话语中的使用情况如何?
2)元话语的出现是否可以通过以功能--语用和二语习得理论为基础,在以Hyland的人际意义元话语模式为蓝本进行修改的框架之内得到解释?
3)元话语在外语课堂教学中所体现的功能如何?
4)除了理论启示外,本研究是否可以提供外语教育方面的启示?具体内容是什么?
为了能够提供适合开展研究调查的语料资源,本研究以来自于国内6所大学的24名英语教师的英语专业国家级精品课教学录像为语料来源,对其进行转写自行建立了小型语料库(共计90,435词),并且主要采用‘AntConc 3.2.2w (Windows) 2008’这一检索软件进行了词条检索和频次统计。
本研究对10类子项元话语手段出现的频次进行了定量分析,结果表明元话语在教师课堂话语中普遍存在,即每千个词中有196.47个元话语出现,其中互动类元话语为143.42个,交际类元话语为53.05个,分别占元话语总数的73%和27%。另外,研究数据结果显示:介入标记应用频次最高,即每千个词中就出现90.10个,几乎占元话语总数的一半;其次是过渡标记,即每千个词中出现34.81个,占元话语总数的17.72;之后是模糊语(22.47, 11.44%)、结构标记(12.17, 6.19%)、增强语(14.01, 7.13%)、自称语(10.84, 5.52%)、语码注释语(4.90, 2.49%)、态度标记(4.00, 2.04%)、回指标记(0.81, 0.41%)和言据标记(0.36, 0.18%)。
同时,本研究通过对语料的定性分析,分别从元话语在微观和宏观、静态和动态层面进行研究,发现元话语的功能在学术口语话语中的表现是多样化的。在较为广阔的语言环境内,元话语手段通过相互协调和相互作用所发挥的多功能性在经过修改的框架内得到了解释,具体表现为语言的交换功能和语言的互动功能,前者包括标明由论点到论据之间的过渡、由传递知识向发布指示之间的转变、由交代事实向得出暂定结论之间的转变和由质疑向解释说明之间的转变;后者包括达成合作交流、建立礼貌和保全面子的氛围、促使有效的‘可理解性输入’和互动的形成;从而通过具有互动倾向的大学课堂话语独白引起外语学习者对‘可理解性输入’的注意和吸收,
从而培养外语学习者的语用意识和交际能力。
研究发现这一基于语料库的外语教师课堂元话语研究为元话语的研究提供了功能、语用和二语习得等多维度研究视角,将元话语在学术书面语篇的研究拓展至以英语为外语的学术口语语篇的研究领域。本研究为提高外语课堂的教学质量与效果、促使外语课堂教师话语有效地进行‘可理解性输入’、培养外语学习者的元话语意识和策略、增强学习者的语用能力起着积极地促进作用。除此之外,本研究在优化教师话语质量和掌握语料库研究方法方面起到极大作用,具体体现在为实施外语教师发展培训提供了崭新的研究视角与培训内容。
Metadiscourse plays an important role in constructing discourse, expressing the speaker’s or writer’s personalities, attitudes and social relations. It is generally referred to as‘discourse about discourse’or‘talk about talk’. Metadiscourse, a linguistic phenomenon and a rhetorical and pragmatic strategy, occurs in everyday language, especially in spoken or written academic English. Studies of metadiscourse have drawn vast attention to discourse analysis, language education, pragmatic studies and many other research fields, which are mainly anchored in written discourse (e.g., Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore, 1989; Cheng, 1997; Intaraprawat, 1998; Hyland, 1998; 2005; Ifantidou, 2001; 2005; ?del, 2006). In addition, the treatment of metadiscourse tends to focus on very specific categories and link one category with one function, either textual or interpersonal.
Research into metadiscourse in spoken academic English, especially in English-for-non-native-language speakers’spoken academic English, such as in EFL teaching classroom discourse has remained largely unexplored (e.g., Mauranen, 2001; Pérez-Llantada, 2006; Aguilar , 2008; Hu, 2008; ?del, 2010). Furthermore, few investigations are framed under functional-pragmatic and second language acquisition theoretical foundations for accounting for the utilization and interpretation of metadiscourse in a broad discourse clustering. Although, recently some researchers have studied metadiscourse in academic lectures, they have been inclined to focus on discourse functions. Take a newly research done by ?del ( 2010 ) for example. He proposes the taxonomy of personal metadiscourse in academic lectures, which consists of 23 discourse functions. However, it is worth noticing that he suggests there should be potential analysis of metadiscoursive acts and their wording to be packaged pedagogically, especially for the benefit of non-native speakers of English. He advocates that“anyone using spoken and written academic English needs to be intimately familiar with the rhetorical acts and recurrent linguistic patterns involved in metadiscourse, both for comprehension and for production”(2010:94). On the other hand, it is clear that EFL teachers’classroom discourse is crucially important in terms of spoken academic discourse for non-native speakers of English, for its function as a teaching medium as well as a language input in EFL teaching and learning. So the research into metadiscourse in EFL classroom teaching is significant.
The present qualitative and corpus-based study, which is done in the light of Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse and his interactive and interactional division of metadiscourse and based on metafunctions of language proposed by Halliday, pragmatic theories and second language acquisition (SLA) theories, mainly attempts to propose a framework of EFL teachers’metadiscourse in classroom teaching. This study attempts to account for interpersonal meaning potential of metadiscourse with reference to relevant contextual features. Moreover, different from the previous studies of metadiscourse which treat specific metadiscourse markers separately, this study explores the multifunctionality of EFL teachers’metadiscourse markers in classroom teaching, especially that of the cooperation and interplay among various metadiscourse markers in a broad co-text, so as to broaden the scope of metadiscourse studies.
Therefore, this study is designed to explore answers to the following questions:
1) Is metadiscourse pervasive in EFL teachers’classroom discourse? How are metadiscourse markers used in EFL classroom teaching?
2) Can the occurrence of metadiscourse in EFL teachers’classroom discourse be elaborated in the modified framework of Hyland’s interpersonal model of metadiscourse under functional-pragmatic and SLA theoretical foundations? And if so, how can its occurrence be demonstrated from this perspective?
3) What are the functions of metadiscourse in EFL classroom teaching?
4) Besides theoretical implications,does this study have any pedagogical implications? And what are they?
In order to provide an appropriate resource for investigation, the corpus of 24 EFL university teachers’classroom teaching transcripts is built. Through quantitative analyses of the occurrences of ten subcategories of metadiscourse markers in EFL teachers’classroom discourse, the results show that 196.47 occurrences per thousand words of metadiscourse markers in corpus State-Level Quality Courses (SLQC), which falls into interactional dimension and interactive dimension of metadiscourse, with 143.42 interactional metadiscourse markers occurrences per thousand words and 53.05 interactive dimension metadiscourse markers occurrences per thousand words respectively. Meanwhile, the former dimension takes 73 percent and the latter is 27 percent of the total occurrences of metadiscourse markers respectively. Additionally, it is revealed that among the ten categories of metadiscourse markers, engagement markers rank the highest frequency with 90.10 occurrences per thousand words, taking nearly half part of the total metadiscourse markers. Transition markers rank the second highest frequency with 34.81 occurrences per thousand words, taking 17.72 percent of the total metadiscourse. These are followed by hedges (22.47, 11.44%), frame markers (12.17, 6.19%), boosters (14.01, 7.13%), self mentions (10.84, 5.52%), code glosses (4.90, 2.49%), attitude markers (4.00, 2.04%), endophoric markers (0.81, 0.41%) and evidentials (0.36, 0.18%).
On the other hand, through qualitative analysis, this study finds metadiscourse markers embody multiple functions in creating an interaction-oriented monologue of non-native speakers’spoken academic English. Within the modified framework of EFL teachers’classroom metadiscourse, the multifunctionality of metadiscourse markers through their cooperation and interplay in EFL classroom teaching is operationalized in a broad co-text. It is found that metadiscourse markers carry out multi-dimensional functions, particularly transactional function and interactional function, which the former consists of sub-functions of signaling transition from a thesis statement to a supporting evidence, shifting from knowledge transmission to directives, from reporting truths to tentative assertion and from questioning to expounding, and the latter consists of sub-functions of achieving cooperative communication and interaction, establishing politeness and face-saving atmosphere, facilitating efficient‘comprehensible input’, motivating notice and promoting interaction.
In conclusion, this corpus-based study of EFL teachers’metadiscourse provides us with multiple-dimensional analysis of metadiscourse in EFL classroom teaching as well as theoretical and pedagogical suggestions and implications in EFL teaching, learning and teacher-development program.
引文
Abdi, R, M. Rizi & M. Tavakoli. 2010. The Cooperative Principle in Discourse Communities and Genres: A Framework for the Use of Metadiscourse [J], Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (6): 1669-1679. .
(?)del, A. 2010.“Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going”: A Taxonomy of Metadiscourse in Spoken and Written Academic English [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, Special Issue: Metadiscourse, 9 (2): 69-97..
(?)del, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English [M]. Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(?)del, A. 2008.‘What uh the folks who did this survey found’: Expert Attribution in Spoke Academic Lectures [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7( 3): 83-102.
Adolphs, S. & V. Durow. 2004. Sociocultural Integration and the Development of Formulaic Sentences [A]. In N. Schmitt, (ed.), Formulaic Sequences [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aguilar, M. 2008. Metadiscourse in Academic Speech: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach[M]. Bern: International Academic Publishers.
Al-Kasey, T. and R. Weston. 1992. Why Can’t Johnny Learn Spanish(?): A Look at Spanish Grammar Instruction [J]. Hispania, 75: 751-5.
Allan, D. 1999. Enhancing the Language Awareness of Hong Kong Teachers through Corpus Data: The Telenex Experience [J]. Journal of Teacher Education, 7(1): 57-74.
Allison, D. 1995. Assertions and Alternatives: Helping ESL Undergraduates Extent Their Choices in Academic Writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 1-15.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Coford:OUP. Barbieri, F. 2008. Involvement in University Classroom Discourse [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northern Arizona University.
Beauvais, P. 1989. A Speech Act Theory of Metadiscourse [J]. Written Communication,6(1), 11-30
Benson, M. J. 1980. The Academic Listening Task: A Case Study [J]. TESOL Quarterly,23(3),421-445.
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance [M]. Oxford: Blackwell. Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Biber, D. 2006. Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
Biber, D., S. Conrad, R. Reppen, P. Byrd, & M. Helt. 2002. Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-48.
Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1989. Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect [J]. Text, 9(1), 93-124.
Breen, M. P. 2008. The Social Context for Language Learning: A Neglected Situation? [A]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D., M. A. Snow, & M.B. Wesche. 1989. Content-Based Second Language Instruction [M]. New York: Newbury House.
Brock, C. A. 1986. The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1986-TSTOR, 47-59.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunton, D. 1999. The Use of Higher Level Metatext in PhD Theses [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S41-S56.
Carter, R. & M. J. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide to Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cazden, Courtney B.1988. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning [M]. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Channell, J. 2001. Corpus-based of Evaluative Lexis [A]. In S. Hunston & G. Thoompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press, 38-55.
Chaudron, C. & J. R. Richards. 1986. The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures [J]. Applied Linguistics, (7): 113-127.
Cheng, X. & M. Steffensen. 1996. Metadiscourse : A Technique for Improving Student Writing [J]. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-81.
Clemen, G. 1997. The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches, and Definitions [A]. In R. Karkkanen & H. Schrder (eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 235-248.
Camiciottoli, B. C. 2003. Metadiscourse and ESP Comprehension: An Exploratory Study [J]. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 15-33.
Coates, J. 1997. Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse [J]. Transactions of the Philological Society, (85): 100-31.
Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Conrad, S. 1999. The Importance of Corpus-Based Research for Language Teachers [J]. System, 27 (1):1-18.
Craig, R. & A. L. Sanusi. 2000.‘I’m Just Saying…’Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity [J]. Argumentation, (14): 425-445.
Craig, R. 2008a. Metadiscourse [A]. In W. Donsbach (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Communication[C]. Vol.VII:3707-9. Oxford, UK, and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Craig, R. & A. Sanusi. 2000.‘I’m just saying…’: Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity [J]. Argumentation, (14): 425-45.
Crismore, A. 1989. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act [M]. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A. 1992. Metadiscourse and Discourse Processes: Interaction and Issues [J]. Discourse Processes, (13): 191-205.
Crismore, A. & R. Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse [A]. In: W. Nash (ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse[C]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crismore, A. & Vande Kopple. 1988. Readers’Learning from Prose: the Effects of Hedges[J]. Written Communication, (5): 184-202.
Crismore, A., R. Markkanen & M. Steffenson. 1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts written by American and Finnish University Students [J]. Written Communication, 10 (1): 39-71.
Crismore, A. 1983. Metadiscourse: What is it and How is it Used in School and Non-School Science Texts [M]. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Crismore, A. & T. Markkanen & M. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students [J]. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Crismore, A. & R. Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse [A]. In W. Nash (ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse [C]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 118-36.
Crompton, P. 1997. Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Ttheoretical Aspects [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4): 271-289.
Dahl, T. 2004. Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Cultural or of Academic Discipline [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (36): 1807-1825.
Dash, P. 2004. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure: A Definitional Analysis with Implications for Classroom Teaching [J]. Asian EFL Journal (September). Availabelat:.
DeCarrico, C. & J.R. Nattinger. 1988. Lexical Phrases for the Comprehension of Academic Lectures [J]. English for Specific Purposes, (7): 91-102. Devlin, B. 2004.英语论文写作教程[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
Dillon, G. 1981.Constructing Texts: Elements of a Theory of Composition and style [M]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. 1994. Genre Analysis: An Approach to Text Analysis in ESP [A]. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis [C]. London: Routledge, 219-28.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Enkvist, N. E. 1978. Some Aspects of Applications of Text Linguistics [A]. In V. Kohonen and N. E. Enkvist, (ed), Text Linguistics Cognitive Learning and Language Teaching [C]. 1-27.
Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of‘you know, you see, and I mean’in Face-to-Gace Conversation [M]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Fisher, S. & S. Groce. 1990. Accounting Practices in Medicine Interviews [J]. Language in Society, 19: 225-250.
Flowerdew, J. 1994. Research of Relevance to Second Language Lecture Comprehension: An Overview [A]. In Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J. & L. Miller. 1977. The Teaching of Academic Listening Comprehension and the Question of Authenticity [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (1): 27-46.
Fraser, Bruce. 1998. Contrastive Discourse Markers in English [A]. In Jucker & Ziv (eds.), Discourse Markers [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company: 301-326.
Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English Discourse Markers [J]. Acta Linguistca Hungarica, 38(1-4): 19-33.
Fraser, B. 1990. An Approach to Discourse Markers [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 383-395.
Fraser, B. 1999. What are Discourse Markers? [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 31:931-952.
Genesee, F.1987. Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education [M]. New York, NJ: Harper & Row.
Gibbons, P. 2006. Bridging Discourse in the ESL Classroom: Students, Teachers and Researchers[M]..
Goffman, E. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior [M]. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. 1974. Forms of Talk [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goffman. E. 1979. Footing [J]. Semiotica, 25:1-29.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, 45-58.
Halliday, M.A.K.1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985/1994/2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Hansen, C. 1994. Topic Identification in Lecture Discourse [A]. In Flowerdew (ed), Academic Listening Research Perspective [C]. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. & D. Watson. 1991. On the Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews [A]. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social Structure [C]. Cambridge: Polity Press, 359-417.
Holmes, J. 1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks [J]. Applied Linguistics, 91, 20-44.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interactions in Academic Writing [M]. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. 1996. Writing without Conviction(?) Hedging in Science Research Articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 17(4): 433-454.
Hyland, K. 1998a. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (30):437-455.
Hyland, K. 1998b. Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s Letter [J]. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2):224-45.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses [M]. London: Pearson.
Hyland, K. & P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal [J]. Applied Linguistics, 25(2): 156-177.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing [M]. London and New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. 1994. Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256.
Huang Y. 2009. Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hunston, S. 1995. Grammar in Teacher Education: The Role of a Corpus [J]. Language Awareness, 4 (1): 15-31.
Ifantidou, E. 2005. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1325-1353.
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidential Adverbs and Relevance [J], Lingua, (90): 65-90.
Ilie, C. 2003. Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates [J]. Journal of Language and Politics, 2, (1):71-92.
Intaraprawat, P. 1988. Metadiscourse in Native English Speakers and ESL Students’Persuasive Essays [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. Normal, IL: Illinois State University. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johns, T. & A. Dudley-Evans, 1980. An Experiment in Team-Teaching of Overseas Postgraduate Students of Transportation and Plant Biology [J]. ELT Documents, No.106:6-23. London:British Council.
Johnson, E. 1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms [J]. Cambride: Cambridge University Press./Linguistics, 35(2), 1997, 430-432. Kris Van den Branden.
Katriel, T. & M. Dascal. 1989. Speaker’s Commitment and Involvement in Discourse [A]. In Y. Tobin (ed), From Sing to Text: a Semiotic view of Communication[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 275-295.
Keller, E. 1979. Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 219-238.
Kennedy, J. 1996. Classroom Explanatory Discourse: A Look at How Teachers Explain Things to Their Students [J]. Language Awareness, Vol.5/2:26-39. Khuwaileh, A. A. 1999. The Role of Chunks, Phrases, and Body Language in Understanding Academic Lectures [J]. System, (27): 249-260.
Krashen, S.P. 1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. P. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. P. 1989. We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: AdditionalEvidence for the Input Hypothesis [J]. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.
Krashen, S. D. 1998. Comprehensible Output [J]. System, 2(26):175-182.
Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts [A]. In P. Peranteau, J. Levi, and G. Phares (eds), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Lautamatti, L. 1978. Observations on the Development of the Topics in Simplified Discourse [A]. In V. Kohonen and N. E. Enkvist (eds.), Text Linguistics, Cognitive
Learning, and language Teaching [C]. Turku, Finland: Abo University Press. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman. Lin, C. 2010.‘…that’s actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in…’Functions and Multifunctionality of Modifiers in Academic Lectures [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (5): 1173-1183.
Lindblom, K. 2001. Cooperating with Grice: A Cross-Disciplinary Metaperspective on Uses of Grice’s Cooperative Principle [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (10), 1601-1623.
Long, M. H. 1980. Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M. H. 1981. Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition [J]. Foreign Language Acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
Long, M. H. 1983. Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Non-native Speakers [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5:177-193.
Long, M. H. 1985. Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory [A]. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, .377-393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. 1991. Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology [A]. In K.de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg & D. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-culture Perspective[C],39-52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long, M. 1996. The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition [A]. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition [C]: Vol.2. Second Language Acquisitio,413-468. San Diego: Academic Press.
Luukka, M. 1994. Metadiscourse in Academic Texts[A]. In B-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell andB. Nordberg (eds.). Text and Talk in Professional Contexts. Selected Papers from the International Conference“Discourse and the Professions,”Uppsala, 26-29 August, 1992. [C]. Uppsala: ASLA, The Swedish Association of Applied Linguistics. 77-88. Mao, L. R.1993. I Conclude Not: Toward a Pragmatic Account of Metadiscourse[J]. Rhetoric Review, (2): 265-289.
Markkanen, R., M. Steffensen and A. Crismore. 1993. A Quantitative Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse: Problems in the Design and Analysis of the Data [A]. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. Poznan: Mickiewicz University, 137-51.
Markkanen, R., & H. Schroder. 1997. Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Text [M]. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Martin, J. R. & D. Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M]. Longdon: Continuum.
Mauranen, A. 1993. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics Texts [J]. English for Specific Purposes, (12): 3-22.
Mauranen, A. 2001. Reflexive Academic Talk: Observations from MICASE [A]. In R. Simpson, & J. Swales (eds.), Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium[C]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 165-78.
Mauranen, A. 2003. But Here’s a Flawed Argument: Socialisation Into and Through Meta-Discourse [A]. In P. Leistyna & C.F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use[C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,19-34.
McCarthy, M. J., & S. Walsh, 2003. Discourse [A]. In D. Nunam (ed.), Practical English Language Teaching [C]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 173-195.
Medgyes, P. 1994. The Non-Native Teacher [M]. London: Macmillan. Meyer, B. 1975. The Organization of Prose and its Effect on Memory [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Moreno, C., A. Chambers & S. O’Riordan. 2006. Integrating a Corpus of Classroom Discourse in Language Teacher Education: The Case of Discourse Markers [J]. ReCALL, 18(1):83–104. Cambridge University Press.
Myers, G. 1989. The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, (10): 11-35.
Myers, G. 1992.“In this paper we report…”: Speech Acts and Scientific Facts[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313. .
Namsaraev, V. 1997. Hedging in Russian Academic Writing in Sociological Texts [A]. In R. Markkanen, & H.Schroder (eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon [C]. BerLin; New York: de Bruyter.
Nystrand, M. 1989. A Social Interactive Model of Wring [J]. Writen Communication, 6, 66-85.
Nystrand, M., L. Wu, & A. Gamoran. 2003. Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamic of Unfold Classroom Discourse [J]. Discourse Processes, 35-2.
Oda, M. 1999. English Only of English Plus: The Language(s) of ELT Organizations [A]. In G. Branine, (ed.), Non-Native Educators in English Language [C]. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 105-122.
Oda, M. 2000. Linguicism in Action [A]. In R. Phillipson (ed.), Rights to Language: Equity, Power and Education [C]. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum, 117-121.
O’Keeffe, A., M. McCarthy & R. Carter, 2007. Form Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olsen, L. A. & T. N. Huckin, 1990. Point-driven Understanding in Engineering Lecture Comprehension [J]. English for Specific Purposes, (9):33-47.
Overfield, D. M. 1996. Teaching Pragmatic Competence: Input, Interaction and Consciousness-Raising [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
Owen, M. 1981. Conversational Unites and the Use of“well”…[A]. In P. Werth (ed.), Conversation and Discourse [C]. London: Croom Helm, 99-116.
Pérez, A. M., & E. A. Macià2002. Metadiscourse in Lecture Comprehension: Does It Really Help Foreign Language Learners(?)[J].
Pérez-Llantada, C. 2006. Signaling Speaker’s Intentions: Toward a Phraseology of Textual Metadiscourse in Academic Lecturing [A]. In Pérez-Llantada, C. & G. R. Ferguson (eds.), English as a Globalization Phenomenon: Observations from a Linguistic Microcosom [C]. Valencia: University of Valencia, 59-88.
Pica, T. & M. H. Long. 1986. The Linguistic and Conversational Performance of Experienced and Inexperienced Teachers [A]. In R. R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 85-98.
Precht, K. 2000. Patterns of Stance in English [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik, 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman.
Richards, J. C. 1983. Listening Comprehension: Approach, Design, Procedure [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2): 219-39.
Schiffrin, D. 1980. Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse [J]. Sociological Inquiry: Language and social Interaction, (50):199-236.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R.W. 1990. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, (11):129-158.
Schffrin, D. 2000. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context [A]. In D. Schiffrin & D. Tannen (eds.), Handbook of Discourse and Analysis [C]. Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 54-75.
Schmidt, R. W. 1994a. Deconstructing Consciousness in Search of Useful Definitions for Applied Linguistics [J]. AILA Review, (11): 11-26.
Schmidt, R. W. 1994b. Implicit Learning and the Cognitive Unconscious: Of Artificial Grammars and SLA [A]. In N.C. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages [C]. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 165-209.
Schmidt, R. W. 1995. Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning [A]. In R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning[C], 1-65. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Schmidt, R. W. 2001. Attention [A]. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 3-32. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. & S. N. Frota. 1986. Developing Basic Conversational Ability in a Second Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese [A]. In R. Day (ed.),Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237-326.
Seale, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [A]. Cambridge: CUP.
Seale, J. R. 1975a. A Taxonomy of Speech Acts [A]. In K. Gunderson (ed.), Minnestota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9: Language, Mind and Knowledge, 34-69.
Seale, J. R. 1975b. Indirect Speech Acts [A]. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), 59-82.
Seale, J. R. 1979. Expressions and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seale, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a Conceptual Gap: The Case for a Description of English as a Lingua France [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11: 133-158.
Simpson, R., S. Briggs, J. Ovens & J. Swales. 1999. The Michigan Corpus of Academic
Spoken English [M]. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Sinclair, J.M. & D. Brazil. 1982. Teacher Talk [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. & Couthard, R.M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils [M]. London: Oxford University Press.
Skulstad, A. S. 2005. The Use of Metadiscourse in Introductory Sections of a New Genre [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, (1).
Sloan, G. 1984. The Frequency of Transitional Markers in Discursive Prose [J]. College English, 46.2:158-75.
Snow, M., M. Met & F.Genesee.1989. A Conceptual Framework for the Integration of Language and Content in Second/Foreign Language Instruction [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 23:201–17.
Snow, M. & D. M. Brinton. 1997. The Content-Based Classroom: Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content[M]. White Plains: Addison Wesley Longman. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steffensen, M.S. & Cheng, X. 1996. Imaginative Aspects of Comprehension in First and Second Language [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schütz, R. 2007. Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition..
Swain, M. 1997. The Output Hypothesis, Focus on Form and Second Language Learning [A]. In V. Berry, B. Adamson, & W. Littlewood (eds), Applying Linguistics: Insights into Language in Education[C]. Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong, 1–21.
Swain, M. 2005. The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research [A]. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning [C]. America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M. 1995. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning [A]. In G. Cook and B. Seidelhofer (eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdows [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre and Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Swales, J. 2001. Metatalk in American Academic Talk: The Cases of‘Point’and‘Thing’[J]. Journal of English Linguistics, 29: 34-54.
Tajino, A. Y. 2000. Native and Non-Native: What can they Offer(?) Lessons from Team-Teaching in Japan [J]. ELT Journal, 4(1): 3-11.
Tannen, D. & C. Wallat. 1993. Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction;Examples form a Medical Examination/Intervies [A]. In D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57-76.
Thompson, G. & P. Thetela. 1995. The Sound of One Hand Clapping: the Management of Interaction in Written Discourse [J]. TEXT, 15(1), 103-27.
Thompson, S. E. 2003. Text-structuring, Metadiscourse, Intonation and the Signaling of Organization in Academic Lectures [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (2): 5-20.
Tulung, G. J. 2008. Communicative Task-generated Oral Discourse in a Second Language: A Case Study of Peer Interaction and Non-native Teaching Talk in an EFL Classroom [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Ottawa.
Tusi, A. B. 2004. What Teachers Have Always Wanted to Know—and How Corpora Can Help [A]. In J. Sinclair (ed.), How to Use Computer in Language Teaching [C].Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-61.
Tusi, A. B. 2005. ESL Teachers’Questions and Corpus Evidence [J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3):335-356.
Van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction In the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity [M]. New York: Longman.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1985. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse [J]. College Composition and Communication, (36): 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1988. Metadiscourse and the Recall of Modality Markers [J]. Visible Language, XXII: 233-272.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1991. Themes, Thematic Progressions, and Some Implications for Understanding Discourse [J]. Written Communication, (8): 311-347.
Varttala, T. 1999. Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2): 177-200.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Edward Arnold Ltd. Vihla, M. 1999. Medical Writing: Modality in Focus [M]. Rodopi, Amsterdam. Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner Involvement in the EFL Classroom [J]. Language Teaching Research, 6 (1): 3-23.
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse [M]. London and New York: Routledge.
Wesche, M. & P. Skehan 2002. Communicative, Task-Based and Content-Based Language Instruction [A]. In R. Kaplan The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. 1980. Models and Fictions [J]. Applied Linguistics 1/2, 165-70.
Widdowson, H. G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. W. 1999. Style: Towards Clarity and Grace [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
William, J. W. 1981. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity & Grace [M]. Boston: Scott Foresman.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance Theory [A]. In L. R. Horn, and G. Ward, (eds.),The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 607-32.
Young, L. 1994. University Lectures: Macro-structure and Micro-features [A]. In Flowersew (ed.). Academic Listening Research Perspective [C]. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
成晓光. 1999.亚语言的理论与应用[J].外语与外语教学.(9):4-7.
成晓光. 1997.亚语言研究[M].大连:辽宁师范大学出版社.
丁往道,吴冰(Ding Wangdao, Wu Bing). 2005.英语写作手册[M].北京:高等教育出版社.
封宗信. 2005.元语言与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学.(9):24—27.
高健.2005.英语元话语的人际—修辞功能多角度研究[D].博士论文.上海外国语大学.
何兆熊.2000.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何自然.1997.语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
胡春华. 2008.学术讲座中元话语的语用学研究:顺应—关联路向[D].上海外国语大学,博士论文.
胡壮麟. 1994.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
贾爱武. 1999.语言课堂话语模式的分析与改进[J].解放军外国语学院学报, (4):72-73.
李佐文. 2001.论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J].外国语,(3):44-50.
李佐文. 2003.元话语:元认知的言语体现[J].外语研究, (1):27-30.
刘川. 2007.元话语使用在大学英语议论写作中的实证研究[J].河北科技师范学院学报. (1):29—68.
刘振聪. 2009.英语学术论文写作[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.
徐海铭. 2001.元语篇:跨文化视域下的理论与实证[M].南京:东南大学出版社.
徐海铭,潘海燕. 2005.元语篇的理论和实证研究综[J].外国语, (6): 54-61.
徐宏亮,康敬群. 2008.学术英语写作基础教程[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社.
徐赳赳. 2006.关于元话语的范围和分类[J].当代语言学,(4): 345—53.
杨信彰.2007.元话语与语言功能[J].外语与外语教学,(12): 1-3.
杨雪燕. 2003.外语教师课堂策略研究:状况与意义[J].外语教学与研究, (1): 54-61.
张霖欣. 2006.英语专业<专业>论文写作教程[M].开封:河南人民出版社.
(?)del, A. 2010.“Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going”: A Taxonomy of Metadiscourse in Spoken and Written Academic English [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, Special Issue: Metadiscourse, 9 (2): 69-97.
(?)del, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English [M]. Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(?)del, A. 2008.‘What uh the folks who did this survey found’: Expert Attribution in Spoke Academic Lectures [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7( 3): 83-102.
Adolphs, S. & V. Durow. 2004. Sociocultural Integration and the Development of Formulaic Sentences [A]. In N. Schmitt, (ed.), Formulaic Sequences [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aguilar, M. 2008. Metadiscourse in Academic Speech: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach[M]. Bern: International Academic Publishers.
Al-Kasey, T. and R. Weston. 1992. Why Can’t Johnny Learn Spanish(?): A Look at Spanish Grammar Instruction [J]. Hispania, 75: 751-5.
Allan, D. 1999. Enhancing the Language Awareness of Hong Kong Teachers through Corpus Data: The Telenex Experience [J]. Journal of Teacher Education, 7(1): 57-74.
Allison, D. 1995. Assertions and Alternatives: Helping ESL Undergraduates Extent Their Choices in Academic Writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 1-15.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Coford:OUP. Barbieri, F. 2008. Involvement in University Classroom Discourse [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northern Arizona University.
Beauvais, P. 1989. A Speech Act Theory of Metadiscourse [J]. Written Communication,6(1), 11-30
Benson, M. J. 1980. The Academic Listening Task: A Case Study [J]. TESOL Quarterly,23(3),421-445.
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance [M]. Oxford: Blackwell. Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Biber, D. 2006. Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
Biber, D., S. Conrad, R. Reppen, P. Byrd, & M. Helt. 2002. Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-48.
Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1989. Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect [J]. Text, 9(1), 93-124.
Breen, M. P. 2008. The Social Context for Language Learning: A Neglected Situation? [A]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D., M. A. Snow, & M.B. Wesche. 1989. Content-Based Second Language Instruction [M]. New York: Newbury House.
Brock, C. A. 1986. The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1986-TSTOR, 47-59.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunton, D. 1999. The Use of Higher Level Metatext in PhD Theses [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S41-S56.
Carter, R. & M. J. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide to Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cazden, Courtney B.1988. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning [M]. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Channell, J. 2001. Corpus-based of Evaluative Lexis [A]. In S. Hunston & G. Thoompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press, 38-55.
Chaudron, C. & J. R. Richards. 1986. The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures [J]. Applied Linguistics, (7): 113-127.
Cheng, X. & M. Steffensen. 1996. Metadiscourse : A Technique for Improving Student Writing [J]. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-81.
Clemen, G. 1997. The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches, and Definitions [A]. In R. Karkkanen & H. Schrder (eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 235-248.
Camiciottoli, B. C. 2003. Metadiscourse and ESP Comprehension: An Exploratory Study [J]. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 15-33.
Coates, J. 1997. Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse [J]. Transactions of the Philological Society, (85): 100-31.
Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Conrad, S. 1999. The Importance of Corpus-Based Research for Language Teachers [J]. System, 27 (1):1-18.
Craig, R. & A. L. Sanusi. 2000.‘I’m Just Saying…’Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity [J]. Argumentation, (14): 425-445.
Craig, R. 2008a. Metadiscourse [A]. In W. Donsbach (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Communication[C]. Vol.VII:3707-9. Oxford, UK, and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Craig, R. & A. Sanusi. 2000.‘I’m just saying…’: Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity [J]. Argumentation, (14): 425-45.
Crismore, A. 1989. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act [M]. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A. 1992. Metadiscourse and Discourse Processes: Interaction and Issues [J]. Discourse Processes, (13): 191-205.
Crismore, A. & R. Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse [A]. In: W. Nash (ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse[C]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crismore, A. & Vande Kopple. 1988. Readers’Learning from Prose: the Effects of Hedges[J]. Written Communication, (5): 184-202.
Crismore, A., R. Markkanen & M. Steffenson. 1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts written by American and Finnish University Students [J]. Written Communication, 10 (1): 39-71.
Crismore, A. 1983. Metadiscourse: What is it and How is it Used in School and Non-School Science Texts [M]. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Crismore, A. & T. Markkanen & M. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students [J]. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Crismore, A. & R. Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse [A]. In W. Nash (ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse [C]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 118-36.
Crompton, P. 1997. Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Ttheoretical Aspects [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4): 271-289.
Dahl, T. 2004. Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Cultural or of Academic Discipline [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (36): 1807-1825.
Dash, P. 2004. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure: A Definitional Analysis with Implications for Classroom Teaching [J]. Asian EFL Journal (September). Availabelat:
DeCarrico, C. & J.R. Nattinger. 1988. Lexical Phrases for the Comprehension of Academic Lectures [J]. English for Specific Purposes, (7): 91-102. Devlin, B. 2004.英语论文写作教程[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
Dillon, G. 1981.Constructing Texts: Elements of a Theory of Composition and style [M]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. 1994. Genre Analysis: An Approach to Text Analysis in ESP [A]. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis [C]. London: Routledge, 219-28.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Enkvist, N. E. 1978. Some Aspects of Applications of Text Linguistics [A]. In V. Kohonen and N. E. Enkvist, (ed), Text Linguistics Cognitive Learning and Language Teaching [C]. 1-27.
Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of‘you know, you see, and I mean’in Face-to-Gace Conversation [M]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Fisher, S. & S. Groce. 1990. Accounting Practices in Medicine Interviews [J]. Language in Society, 19: 225-250.
Flowerdew, J. 1994. Research of Relevance to Second Language Lecture Comprehension: An Overview [A]. In Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J. & L. Miller. 1977. The Teaching of Academic Listening Comprehension and the Question of Authenticity [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (1): 27-46.
Fraser, Bruce. 1998. Contrastive Discourse Markers in English [A]. In Jucker & Ziv (eds.), Discourse Markers [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company: 301-326.
Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English Discourse Markers [J]. Acta Linguistca Hungarica, 38(1-4): 19-33.
Fraser, B. 1990. An Approach to Discourse Markers [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 383-395.
Fraser, B. 1999. What are Discourse Markers? [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 31:931-952.
Genesee, F.1987. Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education [M]. New York, NJ: Harper & Row.
Gibbons, P. 2006. Bridging Discourse in the ESL Classroom: Students, Teachers and Researchers[M].
Goffman, E. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior [M]. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. 1974. Forms of Talk [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goffman. E. 1979. Footing [J]. Semiotica, 25:1-29.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, 45-58.
Halliday, M.A.K.1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985/1994/2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Hansen, C. 1994. Topic Identification in Lecture Discourse [A]. In Flowerdew (ed), Academic Listening Research Perspective [C]. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. & D. Watson. 1991. On the Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews [A]. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social Structure [C]. Cambridge: Polity Press, 359-417.
Holmes, J. 1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks [J]. Applied Linguistics, 91, 20-44.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interactions in Academic Writing [M]. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. 1996. Writing without Conviction(?) Hedging in Science Research Articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 17(4): 433-454.
Hyland, K. 1998a. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (30):437-455.
Hyland, K. 1998b. Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s Letter [J]. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2):224-45.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses [M]. London: Pearson.
Hyland, K. & P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal [J]. Applied Linguistics, 25(2): 156-177.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing [M]. London and New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. 1994. Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256.
Huang Y. 2009. Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hunston, S. 1995. Grammar in Teacher Education: The Role of a Corpus [J]. Language Awareness, 4 (1): 15-31.
Ifantidou, E. 2005. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1325-1353.
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidential Adverbs and Relevance [J], Lingua, (90): 65-90.
Ilie, C. 2003. Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates [J]. Journal of Language and Politics, 2, (1):71-92.
Intaraprawat, P. 1988. Metadiscourse in Native English Speakers and ESL Students’Persuasive Essays [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. Normal, IL: Illinois State University. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johns, T. & A. Dudley-Evans, 1980. An Experiment in Team-Teaching of Overseas Postgraduate Students of Transportation and Plant Biology [J]. ELT Documents, No.106:6-23. London:British Council.
Johnson, E. 1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms [J]. Cambride: Cambridge University Press./Linguistics, 35(2), 1997, 430-432. Kris Van den Branden.
Katriel, T. & M. Dascal. 1989. Speaker’s Commitment and Involvement in Discourse [A]. In Y. Tobin (ed), From Sing to Text: a Semiotic view of Communication[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 275-295.
Keller, E. 1979. Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 219-238.
Kennedy, J. 1996. Classroom Explanatory Discourse: A Look at How Teachers Explain Things to Their Students [J]. Language Awareness, Vol.5/2:26-39. Khuwaileh, A. A. 1999. The Role of Chunks, Phrases, and Body Language in Understanding Academic Lectures [J]. System, (27): 249-260.
Krashen, S.P. 1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. P. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. P. 1989. We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: AdditionalEvidence for the Input Hypothesis [J]. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.
Krashen, S. D. 1998. Comprehensible Output [J]. System, 2(26):175-182.
Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts [A]. In P. Peranteau, J. Levi, and G. Phares (eds), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Lautamatti, L. 1978. Observations on the Development of the Topics in Simplified Discourse [A]. In V. Kohonen and N. E. Enkvist (eds.), Text Linguistics, Cognitive
Learning, and language Teaching [C]. Turku, Finland: Abo University Press. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman. Lin, C. 2010.‘…that’s actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in…’Functions and Multifunctionality of Modifiers in Academic Lectures [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (5): 1173-1183.
Lindblom, K. 2001. Cooperating with Grice: A Cross-Disciplinary Metaperspective on Uses of Grice’s Cooperative Principle [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (10), 1601-1623.
Long, M. H. 1980. Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M. H. 1981. Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition [J]. Foreign Language Acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
Long, M. H. 1983. Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Non-native Speakers [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5:177-193.
Long, M. H. 1985. Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory [A]. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, .377-393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. 1991. Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology [A]. In K.de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg & D. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-culture Perspective[C],39-52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long, M. 1996. The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition [A]. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition [C]: Vol.2. Second Language Acquisitio,413-468. San Diego: Academic Press.
Luukka, M. 1994. Metadiscourse in Academic Texts[A]. In B-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell andB. Nordberg (eds.). Text and Talk in Professional Contexts. Selected Papers from the International Conference“Discourse and the Professions,”Uppsala, 26-29 August, 1992. [C]. Uppsala: ASLA, The Swedish Association of Applied Linguistics. 77-88. Mao, L. R.1993. I Conclude Not: Toward a Pragmatic Account of Metadiscourse[J]. Rhetoric Review, (2): 265-289.
Markkanen, R., M. Steffensen and A. Crismore. 1993. A Quantitative Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse: Problems in the Design and Analysis of the Data [A]. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. Poznan: Mickiewicz University, 137-51.
Markkanen, R., & H. Schroder. 1997. Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Text [M]. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Martin, J. R. & D. Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M]. Longdon: Continuum.
Mauranen, A. 1993. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics Texts [J]. English for Specific Purposes, (12): 3-22.
Mauranen, A. 2001. Reflexive Academic Talk: Observations from MICASE [A]. In R. Simpson, & J. Swales (eds.), Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium[C]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 165-78.
Mauranen, A. 2003. But Here’s a Flawed Argument: Socialisation Into and Through Meta-Discourse [A]. In P. Leistyna & C.F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use[C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,19-34.
McCarthy, M. J., & S. Walsh, 2003. Discourse [A]. In D. Nunam (ed.), Practical English Language Teaching [C]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 173-195.
Medgyes, P. 1994. The Non-Native Teacher [M]. London: Macmillan. Meyer, B. 1975. The Organization of Prose and its Effect on Memory [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Moreno, C., A. Chambers & S. O’Riordan. 2006. Integrating a Corpus of Classroom Discourse in Language Teacher Education: The Case of Discourse Markers [J]. ReCALL, 18(1):83–104. Cambridge University Press.
Myers, G. 1989. The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, (10): 11-35.
Myers, G. 1992.“In this paper we report…”: Speech Acts and Scientific Facts[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313. .
Namsaraev, V. 1997. Hedging in Russian Academic Writing in Sociological Texts [A]. In R. Markkanen, & H.Schroder (eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon [C]. BerLin; New York: de Bruyter.
Nystrand, M. 1989. A Social Interactive Model of Wring [J]. Writen Communication, 6, 66-85.
Nystrand, M., L. Wu, & A. Gamoran. 2003. Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamic of Unfold Classroom Discourse [J]. Discourse Processes, 35-2.
Oda, M. 1999. English Only of English Plus: The Language(s) of ELT Organizations [A]. In G. Branine, (ed.), Non-Native Educators in English Language [C]. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 105-122.
Oda, M. 2000. Linguicism in Action [A]. In R. Phillipson (ed.), Rights to Language: Equity, Power and Education [C]. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum, 117-121.
O’Keeffe, A., M. McCarthy & R. Carter, 2007. Form Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olsen, L. A. & T. N. Huckin, 1990. Point-driven Understanding in Engineering Lecture Comprehension [J]. English for Specific Purposes, (9):33-47.
Overfield, D. M. 1996. Teaching Pragmatic Competence: Input, Interaction and Consciousness-Raising [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
Owen, M. 1981. Conversational Unites and the Use of“well”…[A]. In P. Werth (ed.), Conversation and Discourse [C]. London: Croom Helm, 99-116.
Pérez, A. M., & E. A. Macià2002. Metadiscourse in Lecture Comprehension: Does It Really Help Foreign Language Learners(?)[J]
Pérez-Llantada, C. 2006. Signaling Speaker’s Intentions: Toward a Phraseology of Textual Metadiscourse in Academic Lecturing [A]. In Pérez-Llantada, C. & G. R. Ferguson (eds.), English as a Globalization Phenomenon: Observations from a Linguistic Microcosom [C]. Valencia: University of Valencia, 59-88.
Pica, T. & M. H. Long. 1986. The Linguistic and Conversational Performance of Experienced and Inexperienced Teachers [A]. In R. R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 85-98.
Precht, K. 2000. Patterns of Stance in English [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik, 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman.
Richards, J. C. 1983. Listening Comprehension: Approach, Design, Procedure [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2): 219-39.
Schiffrin, D. 1980. Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse [J]. Sociological Inquiry: Language and social Interaction, (50):199-236.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R.W. 1990. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, (11):129-158.
Schffrin, D. 2000. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context [A]. In D. Schiffrin & D. Tannen (eds.), Handbook of Discourse and Analysis [C]. Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 54-75.
Schmidt, R. W. 1994a. Deconstructing Consciousness in Search of Useful Definitions for Applied Linguistics [J]. AILA Review, (11): 11-26.
Schmidt, R. W. 1994b. Implicit Learning and the Cognitive Unconscious: Of Artificial Grammars and SLA [A]. In N.C. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages [C]. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 165-209.
Schmidt, R. W. 1995. Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning [A]. In R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning[C], 1-65. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Schmidt, R. W. 2001. Attention [A]. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 3-32. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. & S. N. Frota. 1986. Developing Basic Conversational Ability in a Second Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese [A]. In R. Day (ed.),Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237-326.
Seale, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [A]. Cambridge: CUP.
Seale, J. R. 1975a. A Taxonomy of Speech Acts [A]. In K. Gunderson (ed.), Minnestota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9: Language, Mind and Knowledge, 34-69.
Seale, J. R. 1975b. Indirect Speech Acts [A]. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), 59-82.
Seale, J. R. 1979. Expressions and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seale, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a Conceptual Gap: The Case for a Description of English as a Lingua France [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11: 133-158.
Simpson, R., S. Briggs, J. Ovens & J. Swales. 1999. The Michigan Corpus of Academic
Spoken English [M]. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Sinclair, J.M. & D. Brazil. 1982. Teacher Talk [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. & Couthard, R.M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils [M]. London: Oxford University Press.
Skulstad, A. S. 2005. The Use of Metadiscourse in Introductory Sections of a New Genre [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, (1).
Sloan, G. 1984. The Frequency of Transitional Markers in Discursive Prose [J]. College English, 46.2:158-75.
Snow, M., M. Met & F.Genesee.1989. A Conceptual Framework for the Integration of Language and Content in Second/Foreign Language Instruction [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 23:201–17.
Snow, M. & D. M. Brinton. 1997. The Content-Based Classroom: Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content[M]. White Plains: Addison Wesley Longman. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steffensen, M.S. & Cheng, X. 1996. Imaginative Aspects of Comprehension in First and Second Language [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schütz, R. 2007. Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition.
Swain, M. 1997. The Output Hypothesis, Focus on Form and Second Language Learning [A]. In V. Berry, B. Adamson, & W. Littlewood (eds), Applying Linguistics: Insights into Language in Education[C]. Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong, 1–21.
Swain, M. 2005. The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research [A]. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning [C]. America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M. 1995. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning [A]. In G. Cook and B. Seidelhofer (eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdows [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre and Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Swales, J. 2001. Metatalk in American Academic Talk: The Cases of‘Point’and‘Thing’[J]. Journal of English Linguistics, 29: 34-54.
Tajino, A. Y. 2000. Native and Non-Native: What can they Offer(?) Lessons from Team-Teaching in Japan [J]. ELT Journal, 4(1): 3-11.
Tannen, D. & C. Wallat. 1993. Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction;Examples form a Medical Examination/Intervies [A]. In D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57-76.
Thompson, G. & P. Thetela. 1995. The Sound of One Hand Clapping: the Management of Interaction in Written Discourse [J]. TEXT, 15(1), 103-27.
Thompson, S. E. 2003. Text-structuring, Metadiscourse, Intonation and the Signaling of Organization in Academic Lectures [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (2): 5-20.
Tulung, G. J. 2008. Communicative Task-generated Oral Discourse in a Second Language: A Case Study of Peer Interaction and Non-native Teaching Talk in an EFL Classroom [D]. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Ottawa.
Tusi, A. B. 2004. What Teachers Have Always Wanted to Know—and How Corpora Can Help [A]. In J. Sinclair (ed.), How to Use Computer in Language Teaching [C].Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-61.
Tusi, A. B. 2005. ESL Teachers’Questions and Corpus Evidence [J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3):335-356.
Van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction In the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity [M]. New York: Longman.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1985. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse [J]. College Composition and Communication, (36): 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1988. Metadiscourse and the Recall of Modality Markers [J]. Visible Language, XXII: 233-272.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1991. Themes, Thematic Progressions, and Some Implications for Understanding Discourse [J]. Written Communication, (8): 311-347.
Varttala, T. 1999. Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2): 177-200.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Edward Arnold Ltd. Vihla, M. 1999. Medical Writing: Modality in Focus [M]. Rodopi, Amsterdam. Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner Involvement in the EFL Classroom [J]. Language Teaching Research, 6 (1): 3-23.
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse [M]. London and New York: Routledge.
Wesche, M. & P. Skehan 2002. Communicative, Task-Based and Content-Based Language Instruction [A]. In R. Kaplan The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. 1980. Models and Fictions [J]. Applied Linguistics 1/2, 165-70.
Widdowson, H. G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. W. 1999. Style: Towards Clarity and Grace [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
William, J. W. 1981. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity & Grace [M]. Boston: Scott Foresman.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance Theory [A]. In L. R. Horn, and G. Ward, (eds.),The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 607-32.
Young, L. 1994. University Lectures: Macro-structure and Micro-features [A]. In Flowersew (ed.). Academic Listening Research Perspective [C]. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
成晓光. 1999.亚语言的理论与应用[J].外语与外语教学.(9):4-7.
成晓光. 1997.亚语言研究[M].大连:辽宁师范大学出版社.
丁往道,吴冰(Ding Wangdao, Wu Bing). 2005.英语写作手册[M].北京:高等教育出版社.
封宗信. 2005.元语言与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学.(9):24—27.
高健.2005.英语元话语的人际—修辞功能多角度研究[D].博士论文.上海外国语大学.
何兆熊.2000.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何自然.1997.语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
胡春华. 2008.学术讲座中元话语的语用学研究:顺应—关联路向[D].上海外国语大学,博士论文.
胡壮麟. 1994.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
贾爱武. 1999.语言课堂话语模式的分析与改进[J].解放军外国语学院学报, (4):72-73.
李佐文. 2001.论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J].外国语,(3):44-50.
李佐文. 2003.元话语:元认知的言语体现[J].外语研究, (1):27-30.
刘川. 2007.元话语使用在大学英语议论写作中的实证研究[J].河北科技师范学院学报. (1):29—68.
刘振聪. 2009.英语学术论文写作[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.
徐海铭. 2001.元语篇:跨文化视域下的理论与实证[M].南京:东南大学出版社.
徐海铭,潘海燕. 2005.元语篇的理论和实证研究综[J].外国语, (6): 54-61.
徐宏亮,康敬群. 2008.学术英语写作基础教程[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社.
徐赳赳. 2006.关于元话语的范围和分类[J].当代语言学,(4): 345—53.
杨信彰.2007.元话语与语言功能[J].外语与外语教学,(12): 1-3.
杨雪燕. 2003.外语教师课堂策略研究:状况与意义[J].外语教学与研究, (1): 54-61.
张霖欣. 2006.英语专业<专业>论文写作教程[M].开封:河南人民出版社.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |