基于语料库的中国外语学习者议论文写作中逻辑连接词的使用研究
|
摘要
许多针对二/外语学习者在写作中使用逻辑连接词情况的相关研究结果都揭示出学习者“过多”使用和“误用”逻辑连接词的问题。大多数研究人员在研究之初都做出了二/外语学习者会过多使用逻辑连接词的假设。而且他们经过一系列研究并讨论之后，发现这个假设得到了不同程度的验证。除了过多使用问题之外，一些研究人员还专门探讨了某个连接词的误用问题，如“besides”、“moreover”、“however”等逻辑连接词的“误用”；并为二/外语学习者提供了具体应用方面的指导。
本项研究之前也列出了如下假设：1.中国外语学习者在逻辑连接词使用方面，比本族语者都较多的使用了某些逻辑连接词；2：中国外语学习者“过多”地使用了所有类别的逻辑连接词；3：母语迁移是导致中国外语学习者某些逻辑连接词“误用”的根本原因。
经过数据对比、分析和讨论，并结合以往相关研究的成果，笔者发现本项研究中的中国学习者在逻辑连接词的使用方面呈现出以下几个特点：1.与本族语大学生相比，较多地使用了逻辑连接词；2.与本族语者相比，尽管使用了一些不同种类的逻辑连接词，但仍不够丰富；3.与本族语者相比，使用的逻辑连接词仍然在高频词汇范围内，较简单。对于较复杂的逻辑连接词，还未涉及；4.初步具备了一定的文体意识。总之，中国学习者的逻辑连接词的整体使用情况还不尽如人意，还应在今后的教学中进一步加强这方面的训练和指导，才能丰富写作技巧和对复杂逻辑连接词的掌握、运用。
通过卡方检验之后，本项研究发现，与本族语大学生相比，中国大学生“过多”地使用了and, but, or, for example, at least, in fact, in addition,for instance, however, because这10个逻辑连接词。这个结果与Eunice Tang和Christine Ng以及Liu和Braine的研究有一致之处。其中，两个“过多”使用的逻辑连接词“but”和“in fact”则与Bolton和Chen的研究有重合的地方。
这种“过多”使用逻辑连接词的现象在许多针对中国学习者习得逻辑连接词的研究中屡见不鲜。而且大多集中于表示“增补”意义的逻辑连接词上，对于其他类别的逻辑连接词的“过多”使用的报告较少见。这并不能说明中国学习者在应用其他类别的逻辑连接词方面表现较好，只能从另一方面反映出中国学习者使用逻辑连接词时丰富度不足的问题。
本项研究中“过多”使用逻辑连接词的结论验证了本项研究之初设立的第一个假设的成立，即中国外语学习者在逻辑连接词的使用方面，比本族语者都较多地使用了某些逻辑连接词。但本项研究结果并没有发现中国大学生在所有种类的逻辑连接词上都出现“过多”使用的现象。本项研究的相关数据表明，中国大学生仅仅“过多”地使用了表示“增补”类别的逻辑连接词。按照Halliday的分类，其他两个类别—“因果”和“时间”都没有发现“过多”使用的证据。因此，第二个假设不成立，也就是说，与本族语者相比，中国外语学习者并不是在每个种类的逻辑连接词使用方面都出现“过多”使用的情况。
以本族语权威作者撰写的学术论文为参照，按照功能语言学以及衔接理论、连贯理论搭建的理论框架，针对中国学生在议论文写作中出现的几个“误用”的逻辑连接词进行了细致的分析，发现引起误用的4点原因：(1)教科书的误导；(2)语域意识模糊；(3)母语迁移的影响；（4）中式思维的影响。同时，本项研究的第三个假设—母语迁移是导致中国外语学习者逻辑连接词的“误用”的根本原因，也因为缺乏足够的证据，不完全成立。
最后，经过一系列分析，讨论，得出如下结论：（1）本项研究中的中国英语专业一年级大学生，无论与本族语大学生相比，还是与学术论文的权威作者相比，都较多地使用了某些逻辑连接词。（2）母语迁移不是引起中国学习者逻辑连接词“误用”的唯一的、根本的原因。（3）本项研究中的中国大学生具备了一定的文体意识，但是语域意识模糊。（4）本项研究发现中国大学生在写作方面深受中式思维的影响。（5）结合本项研究的数据分析与讨论，笔者认为Halliday的功能语言学的相关理论以及衔接理论不能完全解释中国外语学习者逻辑连接词的“误用”问题。
本项研究在教学方法、教学手段、教科书的编写上提出了几点建议。当然，任何研究都有局限性和不足处之处，本项研究也不例外：选取的数据库在对等性方面还有些欠缺；由于相关软件存在的局限使本项研究对数据的处理和分析还不够全面、深入。笔者将对后续相关研究提出展望：应该观察中国学习者与英语作文相对应的汉语作文语料。
A series of recent reports on corpus linguistics suggest that “ESL/EFL writing”may be the area where modern corpus studies can make some significantcontributions. It is possible and necessary for us in the field of EFL teaching havesomething to gain by appling some typical techniques of corpus linguistics to thestudy of the logical connectors in English writing. The objective of the current studyhere is to determine how EFL teachers extract some useful empirical data from thelearner corpora.
Three following hypotheses have been proposed at the beginning of the study:1.Chinese EFL learners use more certain logical connectors than native speakers2.Chinese EFL learners “overuse” logical connectors of all kinds.3. the transfer ofmother tongue directly leads to the “misuse” of Chinese EFL learners.
The required data were supplied from three corpora that is a native student’scorpus, one part of LOCNESS corpus; an academic corpus of18published articles onsome famous periodicals; and a learner corpus,350argumentative essays inSWECCL.
Data comparison and analysis, discussion and research findings show that theusage of logical connectors in Chinese EFL learners’ writing displays some features asfollows:1. As compared with native speakers, Chinese EFL learners use more logicalconnectors.2. Though different logical connectors are used, they are not abundant.3.Logical connectors used by Chinese EFL learners are only simple and high frequencywords. The more complicated logical connectors are not used.4. Chinese EFLlearners have little awareness of register.
The result of Chi-Square Calculator shows that Chinese students overuse totally10logical connectors:“and, but, or, for example, at least, in fact, in addition, forinstance, however, because”. This result is consistent with some findings in ChristineNg’s, Liu’s and Braine’s study. In addition, the overuse of logical connectors “but”and “in fact” also overlapped in Bolton’s and Chen’s study.
The overuse of logical connectors in Chinese EFL learners’ English essays is acommon feature among many relative studies in this field. Moreover, the overuse of additive logical connectors has been frequently reported in a large number of studies,in contrast with the overuse of other types of logical connectors. However, such resultcannot reflect the good command of these types of logical connectors by Chineselearners. In fact, it shows that Chinese EFL learners cannot skillfully use a variety oflogical connectors.
The conclusion of overuse of logical connectors in Chinese EFL learners’ Englishessays confirms the first hypothesis in the beginning of the study, namely, ChineseEFL learners use more certain logical connectors than native speakers. However, theresult of the study does not show that Chinese college students overuse logicalconnectors of all kinds. The relevant data of this study indicate that Chinese collegestudents only overuse the logical connectors in the category of “addition”. Noevidence, however, shows the overuse of “causal” or “temporal” logical connectors,two other categories classified by Halliday accordingly. Consequently, the secondhypothesis is rejected. As compared with native English speakers, Chinese EFLlearners do not overuse logical connectors of all kinds.
In reference to native academic writings, the ‘misuse’ of some logical connectors,such as “and, but, finally, actually, in fact, moreover”, has been analyzed thoroughlyon theoretical basis of functional linguistics, cohesion and coherence theoriesframework. Thus, four causes that lead to the ‘misuse’ have been identified: i. themisleading of some textbooks; ii. the uncertainty of ‘register’; iii. the influence ofnegative transfer; iv. the mode of thinking of Chinese people. Moreover, the thirdhypothesis is also rejected being lack of enough evidence.
At the end of the study, some findings have shown that
(1) The Chinese freshmen of English majors in this study tend to use moreparticular logical connectors as compared with native English students and Englishwriters.
(2) The transfer of mother tongue is not the only and radical reason that gives riseto the “misuse” of Chinese EFL learners.
(3) Chinese EFL learners in this study have little stylistic awareness in writing butthey are not clear about register.
(4) This study shows that Chinese college students’ English writings are greatlyinfluenced by Chinese thinking mode.
(5) Data analysis and discussion in this study show that cohesion theory and relevant theories of Halliday’s functional linguistics can not fully explain the“misuse” problem of Chinese EFL learners.
A number of suggestions are proposed in pedagogy, teaching methods andtextbooks. There are no exceptions in this study for its limits and deficiencies: thecorpus used in this study has deficiencies in corpus equivalence; the process andanalysis of data is not enough because of some limitation of the softwares adopted inthis study.
The author proposes prospects for the follow-up research: there should beobservation of Chinese EFL learners’ English writing and their Chinese writingaccordingly in the future.
本项研究之前也列出了如下假设：1.中国外语学习者在逻辑连接词使用方面，比本族语者都较多的使用了某些逻辑连接词；2：中国外语学习者“过多”地使用了所有类别的逻辑连接词；3：母语迁移是导致中国外语学习者某些逻辑连接词“误用”的根本原因。
经过数据对比、分析和讨论，并结合以往相关研究的成果，笔者发现本项研究中的中国学习者在逻辑连接词的使用方面呈现出以下几个特点：1.与本族语大学生相比，较多地使用了逻辑连接词；2.与本族语者相比，尽管使用了一些不同种类的逻辑连接词，但仍不够丰富；3.与本族语者相比，使用的逻辑连接词仍然在高频词汇范围内，较简单。对于较复杂的逻辑连接词，还未涉及；4.初步具备了一定的文体意识。总之，中国学习者的逻辑连接词的整体使用情况还不尽如人意，还应在今后的教学中进一步加强这方面的训练和指导，才能丰富写作技巧和对复杂逻辑连接词的掌握、运用。
通过卡方检验之后，本项研究发现，与本族语大学生相比，中国大学生“过多”地使用了and, but, or, for example, at least, in fact, in addition,for instance, however, because这10个逻辑连接词。这个结果与Eunice Tang和Christine Ng以及Liu和Braine的研究有一致之处。其中，两个“过多”使用的逻辑连接词“but”和“in fact”则与Bolton和Chen的研究有重合的地方。
这种“过多”使用逻辑连接词的现象在许多针对中国学习者习得逻辑连接词的研究中屡见不鲜。而且大多集中于表示“增补”意义的逻辑连接词上，对于其他类别的逻辑连接词的“过多”使用的报告较少见。这并不能说明中国学习者在应用其他类别的逻辑连接词方面表现较好，只能从另一方面反映出中国学习者使用逻辑连接词时丰富度不足的问题。
本项研究中“过多”使用逻辑连接词的结论验证了本项研究之初设立的第一个假设的成立，即中国外语学习者在逻辑连接词的使用方面，比本族语者都较多地使用了某些逻辑连接词。但本项研究结果并没有发现中国大学生在所有种类的逻辑连接词上都出现“过多”使用的现象。本项研究的相关数据表明，中国大学生仅仅“过多”地使用了表示“增补”类别的逻辑连接词。按照Halliday的分类，其他两个类别—“因果”和“时间”都没有发现“过多”使用的证据。因此，第二个假设不成立，也就是说，与本族语者相比，中国外语学习者并不是在每个种类的逻辑连接词使用方面都出现“过多”使用的情况。
以本族语权威作者撰写的学术论文为参照，按照功能语言学以及衔接理论、连贯理论搭建的理论框架，针对中国学生在议论文写作中出现的几个“误用”的逻辑连接词进行了细致的分析，发现引起误用的4点原因：(1)教科书的误导；(2)语域意识模糊；(3)母语迁移的影响；（4）中式思维的影响。同时，本项研究的第三个假设—母语迁移是导致中国外语学习者逻辑连接词的“误用”的根本原因，也因为缺乏足够的证据，不完全成立。
最后，经过一系列分析，讨论，得出如下结论：（1）本项研究中的中国英语专业一年级大学生，无论与本族语大学生相比，还是与学术论文的权威作者相比，都较多地使用了某些逻辑连接词。（2）母语迁移不是引起中国学习者逻辑连接词“误用”的唯一的、根本的原因。（3）本项研究中的中国大学生具备了一定的文体意识，但是语域意识模糊。（4）本项研究发现中国大学生在写作方面深受中式思维的影响。（5）结合本项研究的数据分析与讨论，笔者认为Halliday的功能语言学的相关理论以及衔接理论不能完全解释中国外语学习者逻辑连接词的“误用”问题。
本项研究在教学方法、教学手段、教科书的编写上提出了几点建议。当然，任何研究都有局限性和不足处之处，本项研究也不例外：选取的数据库在对等性方面还有些欠缺；由于相关软件存在的局限使本项研究对数据的处理和分析还不够全面、深入。笔者将对后续相关研究提出展望：应该观察中国学习者与英语作文相对应的汉语作文语料。
A series of recent reports on corpus linguistics suggest that “ESL/EFL writing”may be the area where modern corpus studies can make some significantcontributions. It is possible and necessary for us in the field of EFL teaching havesomething to gain by appling some typical techniques of corpus linguistics to thestudy of the logical connectors in English writing. The objective of the current studyhere is to determine how EFL teachers extract some useful empirical data from thelearner corpora.
Three following hypotheses have been proposed at the beginning of the study:1.Chinese EFL learners use more certain logical connectors than native speakers2.Chinese EFL learners “overuse” logical connectors of all kinds.3. the transfer ofmother tongue directly leads to the “misuse” of Chinese EFL learners.
The required data were supplied from three corpora that is a native student’scorpus, one part of LOCNESS corpus; an academic corpus of18published articles onsome famous periodicals; and a learner corpus,350argumentative essays inSWECCL.
Data comparison and analysis, discussion and research findings show that theusage of logical connectors in Chinese EFL learners’ writing displays some features asfollows:1. As compared with native speakers, Chinese EFL learners use more logicalconnectors.2. Though different logical connectors are used, they are not abundant.3.Logical connectors used by Chinese EFL learners are only simple and high frequencywords. The more complicated logical connectors are not used.4. Chinese EFLlearners have little awareness of register.
The result of Chi-Square Calculator shows that Chinese students overuse totally10logical connectors:“and, but, or, for example, at least, in fact, in addition, forinstance, however, because”. This result is consistent with some findings in ChristineNg’s, Liu’s and Braine’s study. In addition, the overuse of logical connectors “but”and “in fact” also overlapped in Bolton’s and Chen’s study.
The overuse of logical connectors in Chinese EFL learners’ English essays is acommon feature among many relative studies in this field. Moreover, the overuse of additive logical connectors has been frequently reported in a large number of studies,in contrast with the overuse of other types of logical connectors. However, such resultcannot reflect the good command of these types of logical connectors by Chineselearners. In fact, it shows that Chinese EFL learners cannot skillfully use a variety oflogical connectors.
The conclusion of overuse of logical connectors in Chinese EFL learners’ Englishessays confirms the first hypothesis in the beginning of the study, namely, ChineseEFL learners use more certain logical connectors than native speakers. However, theresult of the study does not show that Chinese college students overuse logicalconnectors of all kinds. The relevant data of this study indicate that Chinese collegestudents only overuse the logical connectors in the category of “addition”. Noevidence, however, shows the overuse of “causal” or “temporal” logical connectors,two other categories classified by Halliday accordingly. Consequently, the secondhypothesis is rejected. As compared with native English speakers, Chinese EFLlearners do not overuse logical connectors of all kinds.
In reference to native academic writings, the ‘misuse’ of some logical connectors,such as “and, but, finally, actually, in fact, moreover”, has been analyzed thoroughlyon theoretical basis of functional linguistics, cohesion and coherence theoriesframework. Thus, four causes that lead to the ‘misuse’ have been identified: i. themisleading of some textbooks; ii. the uncertainty of ‘register’; iii. the influence ofnegative transfer; iv. the mode of thinking of Chinese people. Moreover, the thirdhypothesis is also rejected being lack of enough evidence.
At the end of the study, some findings have shown that
(1) The Chinese freshmen of English majors in this study tend to use moreparticular logical connectors as compared with native English students and Englishwriters.
(2) The transfer of mother tongue is not the only and radical reason that gives riseto the “misuse” of Chinese EFL learners.
(3) Chinese EFL learners in this study have little stylistic awareness in writing butthey are not clear about register.
(4) This study shows that Chinese college students’ English writings are greatlyinfluenced by Chinese thinking mode.
(5) Data analysis and discussion in this study show that cohesion theory and relevant theories of Halliday’s functional linguistics can not fully explain the“misuse” problem of Chinese EFL learners.
A number of suggestions are proposed in pedagogy, teaching methods andtextbooks. There are no exceptions in this study for its limits and deficiencies: thecorpus used in this study has deficiencies in corpus equivalence; the process andanalysis of data is not enough because of some limitation of the softwares adopted inthis study.
The author proposes prospects for the follow-up research: there should beobservation of Chinese EFL learners’ English writing and their Chinese writingaccordingly in the future.
引文
[1] Altenberg B. The Correspondence of Resultive Connectors in English and Swedish[J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies,2007，6（1）：26pp.
[2] Altenberg B. Using bilingual corpus evidence in learner corpus research[M]. inSylviane Granger,Joseph Hung and Stephanie Petch Tyson（eds）, Computer LearnerCorpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching,2002：37-54.
[3] Altenberg B. and Tapper M. The Use of Adverbial Connectors in Advanced SwedishLearners’ Written English. Learner English on Computer（Ed. by S. Granger）[M]. London, New York,1998：80-93.
[4] Anne E. The Limitations of Cohesion[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1982（12）：390-393.
[5] Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad,&E. Finegan. Longman Grammar ofSpoken and Written English[J]. Harlow: Pearson Education,2009:875-892.
[6] Bolton, K., Nelson, G.&Hung, J. A Corpus-Based Study Connectors in StudentWriting: Research from The International Corpus of English in Hong Kong(ICE-HK).International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,2002，7(2),165-182.
[7] Brown, G.&Yule, G. Discourse Analysis[M].Cambridge：CUP,1983：223-271.
[8] Carolyn D. Castro. Cohesion and the Social Construction of Meaning in the Essaysof Filipino College Students Writing in L2English[J]. Asia Pacific EducationReview,2004（5）：215-225.
[9] Cherry, R.,8c Cooper, C. Cohesive ties and discourse structure: A study ofaverage and superior texts at four grade levels. Unpublished manuscript,Department of Learning and Instruction, State University of New York at Buffalo,1980.
[10] Cheryl Wei-yu Chen. The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papersof advanced Taiwanese EFL learners [J].International Journal of CorpusLinguistics,2006（11）：113-130.
[11] Conrad Susan M. Investigating Academic Texts with Corpus-Based techniques: AnExample From Biology[J]. Linguistics and Education,1996（8）：299-326.
[12] Conrad S. M.. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers[J].System,1999（27）：1-18.
[13] Crewe, W. C. Wright,&M. W. K. Leung. Connectives: on the other hand, who needsthem, though?[J]. Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching,1985（8）：61-75.
[14] Crewe, W., C. The illogic of logical connectors [M]. EFL Journal,1990,44:316-25.
[15] Crowhurst, M. Cohesion in argumentative prose. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.1981.
[16] David M. Bell. Correlative and Non-correlative “on the other hand”[J].Journal of Pragmatics,2004（36）：2179-2184.
[17] Deng Fei. The effect of the use of adverbial connectors on Chinese EFL learnersEnglish Writing quality [J]. CELEA Journal2006, Vol.29.105-111.
[18] Deng Yaochen.Use of Adverbial Connectors in Chinese EFL Learners ArgumentativeWriting[J]CELEA Journal,2006（12）：32-36.
[19] Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad and Randi Reppen. Corpus-based Approaches to Issuesin Applied Linguistics[J]. Applied linguistics,1994（15）：169-189.
[20] Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad and Randi Reppen. Corpus-based Investigations ofLanguage Use[J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,1996（16）：115-136.
[21] Douglas Biber. Corpus-based and Corpus-driven Analyses of Language Variationand Use[M]. in The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis,2010：159-191.
[22] Elizabeth J. Pretorius. The Comprehension of Logical Relations in ExpositoryTexts by Students Who Study Through the Medium of ESL[J]. System,2006（34）：432-450.
[23] Esther Geva. The Role of Conjunctions in L2Text Comprehension[J]. TESOLQuarterly,1992（26）：731-747.
[24] Fanny Meunier. Computer tools for the analysis of learner corpora[M]. inSylviane Granger(eds), Learner English on Computer, New York: Longman,1998：19-37.
[25] Field, Y.&L. M. O. Yip A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in theEnglish essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English [J].RELC Journal,1992,23(1),15-28.
[26] George A McCulley. Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion[J].Research in theTeaching of English,1985（10）：269-282.
[27]Gorjian Bahman, Pazhakh Abdolreza, Naghizadeh Mohammad. Comparative Study ofConjunctive Adverbials (CAs) in Native Researchers’(NRs) and Non-NativeResearchers’(NNRs) Experimental Articles[J].Advances in Asian Social Science,2012,(1):244-247.
[28] Granger, S. and Tyson, S. Connector usage in the English essay writing of nativeand non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes1996,15(1):17-27.
[29] Gyula Tankó. The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian universitystudents’ argumentative essays. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching.(Ed. ByJohn McH. Sinclair)[M] John Benjamins, USA,2004:157-181.
[30] Halliday, M. A. K. Language structure and language function. In John Lyons (ed.)New Horizaons in Lignuistics[M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.1970:140-165.
[31] Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976:226-273.
[32] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Arnold,1994:323-329.
[33] Hartnett, Carolyn G. Static and dynamic cohesion: signals of thinking inwriting. In Functional Approaches to Writing (Edited by B. Couture)[M]. London:Pinter.1986:142-151.
[34] Helen Basturkmen. Clause Relations and Macro Patterns: Cohesion, Coherence andthe Writing of Advanced ESOL Students[J].Forum,2002（1）：50-56.
[35] Horning Alice. Readable Writing: The Role of Cohesion and Redundancy[J].Journal of Advanced Composition,1991，（11）：135-145.
[36] Icy Lee. Teaching Coherence to ESL Students: a Classroom Inquiry [J]. Journalof Second Language Writing,2002（11）：135-159.
[37] James, Carl. Contrastive Analysis [M]. Harlow, Essex: Longman Group Ltd.2005:80-92；94-114.
[38] Jennifer Thurstun&Christopher N. Candlin[J]. English for Specific purposes,1998（17）：267-280.
[39] Jerome L. Neuner. Cohesive Ties and Chains in Good and Poor FreshmanEssays[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1987（2）：92-105.
[40] Johnson, P. Cohesion and Coherence in Compositions in Malay and English[J].R. E.L. C. JOURNAL，1992（23）：1-34.
[41] Kausar Husain. Transfer of Conjunctions in ESL Writing[J].Language In India,2008（4）：1-19.
[42] Lei Lei. Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics byChinese doctoral students[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes2012,(11):267-275.
[43] Lina Bikeliene. Resultive Connectors in Advanced Lithuanian Learners’EnglishWriting[J]KALBOTYRA,2008,59（3）：30-36.
[44]Liu Dilin. Linking Adverbials: An Across-register Corpus Study and itsImplications[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,2008（13）：491-518.
[45] Liu Meihua&George Braine. Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Producedby Chinese Undergraduates[J]. System,2005（12）：623-636.
[46] Lou Burnard. Where did we Go Wrong? A Retrospective Look at the British NationalCorpus[M].Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis(ed. by BernhardKetemann, Georg Marko)2009：51-68.
[47] Luisa Carrio Pastor. The use of connectors in scientific articles by nativeAnd non-native writers[J]. English for Specific Purposes World.2006,Issue2(13),Volume5:1-8.
[48] Mann W. C.&Thompson S. A. Two views of rhetrorical structure theory.http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~billmann/WMlinguistic/twovsend.doc.
[49] Mann, B. An introduction to rhetorical structure theory (RST).http://www.sil.org/\~{}mannb/rst/rintro99.htm.
[50] Mann, W.C.,&Thompson, S.A. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a unctionaltheory of text organization[J]. Text,1988,8(3):243-281.
[51] Masumi Narita, Chieko Sato&Masatoshi Sugiura. Connector Usage in the EnglishEssay Writing of Japanese EFL Learners，http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2004/pdf/48.pdf.
[52] McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers[M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1991.
[53] Milton, J.&E. S. C. Tsang. A corpus-based study of logical connectors inEFL students’writingdirections for further research [M]. In R. Pemberton&E. S.C. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in Lexis. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Universityof Science and Technology Language Centre,1993:215-246.
[54] Miranda Y. P. LEE. Structure and Cohesion of English Narratives by Nordic andChinese Students[J]. Nordlyd,2003（31）：290-302.
[55] Nadja Nesselhauf. Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching
[M].in John McH. Sinclair(eds). How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching,2004：125-157.
[56] Tankó Gyula. The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’argumentative essays[M].in John McH. Sinclair(eds). How to Use Corpora inLanguage Teaching,2004：157-181.
[57] Narita M., Sato C. and Sugiura M. Connector Usage in the English Essay Writingof Japanese EFL Learners [J]. In Proceedings of4thInternational Conferenceon Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC),2004,1171-1174.
[58] Neuner, Jerome L. Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays.Research in the Teaching of English,1987,21,92-103.
[59] Pamela Spycher. Academic Writing of Adolescent English Learners: Learning touse “although”[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,2007（16）：238-254.
[60] Patricia L. Carrell. Cohesion is not Coherence[J]. TESOL Quarterly,1982（12）：479-488.
[61] Peacock, M. Linking adverbials in research articles across eight disciplines.Iberica,2010，（10）：9-33.
[62] Philip Shaw. Linking Adverbials in Student and Professional Writing in LiteraryStudies: What Makes Writing Mature[M]. in Maggie Charles, Diane Pecorari andSusan Hunston(eds). Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus andDiscourse,New York：2009，215-235.
[63] Pilar Aguado-Jiménez, Pascual Pérez-Paredes, Purificación Sánchez. Exploringthe use of multidimensional andlysi of learner language to promote registerawareness[J]. System,2012（40）：90-103.
[64] Rahimi Ali,&Qannadzadeh Jamal-addin. Quantitative usage of logicalconnectors in Iranians’ EFL essay writing and logical and linguisticintelligences[J]. http://www.Sciencedirect.com.
[65] Richard Watson Todd, Somreudee Khongput and Pornapit Darasawang. Coherence,Cohesion and Comments on Students’ Academic Essays.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293507000050
[66] Robert Lado. Linguistics Across Culture [M]. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.1957.
[67] Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech,&J. Savartvik A comprehensive grammar ofthe English language[M]. London: Longman,1985:441-449；645-647；920-928.
[68] Robert J. Tiernery&James H. Mosenthal. Cohesion and Textual Coherence[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1983（10）：215-229.
[69] Sinclair, J. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M].Oxford：Oxford UniversityPress,1991：27-36；107-109.
[70] Stephen P. Witte&Lester Faigley. Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality[J].College Composition and Communication,1981（5）：189-204.
[71] Steve Chiang. The Importance of Cohesive Conditions to Perceptions of WritingQuality at the Early Stages of Foreign language Learning [J].System,2003（31）：471-484.
[72] Svenja Adolphs&Phoebe M. S. Lin. Corpus Linguistics[M]. in James Simpson(eds),The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics, USA&Canada,2011：597-610.
[73] Sylviane Granger. The computer learner corpus: a versatile new source of datafor SLA research [M]. in Sylviane Granger(eds), Learner English on Computer,NewYork: Longman,1998：3-18.
[74] Sylviane Granger. A Bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research[M]. in SylvianeGranger, Joseph Hung and Stephanie Petch Tyson（eds）, Computer Learner Corpora,Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching,2002：1-32.
[75] Sylviane Granger&Chris Tribble. Learner corpus data in the foreign languageclassroom: form-focused instruction and data-driven learning[M]. in SylvianeGranger(eds), Learner English on Computer, New York: Longman,1998：199-209.
[76] Tatjana Balazic Bulc. Connectors in Students’ Academic Writing in Two CloselyRelated Languageshttp://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2005-journal/Contrastive Corpus Linguistics/Connectors in studentsacademic writing. doc
[77] Tierney, R. and Mosenthal, J. Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in theTeaching of English,1983，17：215-229.
[78] Thompson S.A.&Mann W. C. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Frarnework for theAnalysis of Textst. IPM Papers in Pragmatics I,1987，（1)：79-lO5.
[79] Van Dijk, T. A. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmaticsof Discourse[M].London：Longman，1977.
[80] Wikborg, Eleanor.‘Types of Coherence Breaks in University StudentWriting,’in N. E. Enkvist (ed.), Coherence and Composition: A Symposium, AboAkademisKopieringscentral,1985：93-133.
[81] Witte, S.,&Faigley, L.Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. CollegeComposition and Communication,1981，（32）：189-203.
[82] Yeung Lorrita. Use and misus of ‘besides’: A corpus study comparing nativespeakers’ and learners’ English [J]. System,2009,(37):330-342.
[83] Zamel, V. Teaching those missing links in writing. EFL Journal,1983，37：22-29.
[84] Zhang Xuemei. A Cprpus-based Study on Chinese EFL Learners Use of AdverbialConjuncts[J]. CELEA Journal,2007（4）：34-40.
[85] Zhou Xin-hong. Application of English Cohesion Theory in the Teaching of Writingto Chinese Graduate Students[J].US-China Education Review,2007（7）：31-37.
[86]陈玫.英语写作中衔接语作用的实证研究[J].闽江学院学报，2005（2）：83-87.
[87]陈声威.产生出练习在二语习得中的作用[J].西安外国语大学学报，2007（6）：85-90.
[88]陈新仁，吴珏.中国英语学习者对因果类话语标记语的使用情况[J].国外外语教学,2006(3)：38-41.
[89]陈新仁.话语联系语与英语议论文写作：调查分析[J].外语教学与研究，2002（9）：350-354.
[90]陈渝.中国学生英语写作中的常见衔接错误分析[J].零陵学院学报，2005（3）：149-151.
[91]程晓堂，王琦.从小句关系看学生英语作文的连贯性[J].外语教学与研究，2004（7）：292-298.
[92]初良龙，赵成发.工科院校学生英语议论文写作中转折连接词使用研究[J].外语界，2011（5）：9-15.
[93]戴炜栋，蔡龙权.中介语的认知发生基础[J].外语与外语教学，2001（9）：2-6.
[94]戴炜栋，束定芳.对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题[J].外国语，1994（5）：1-7.
[95]邓飞.连接副词的语用功能与使用情况调查[J].大连海事大学学报（社会科学版）：2009（2），114-117.
[96]邓耀臣.学习者语料库与第二语言习得研究述评[J].外语界,2007(1)：16-21.
[97]董俊虹.大学生英语写作中语篇衔接与连贯的错误分析[J].外语教学，1999,（1）：83-86.
[98]桂诗春.以语料库为基础的中国学习者英语失误分析的认知模型[J].现代外语，2004(5),Vol.27：129-139.
[99]郭纯洁.语篇连贯性的认知基础[J].现代外语，2003（1）：14-21.
[100]桂诗春,宁春岩.语言学方法论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1998：93-107、333-346.
[101]胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1994：92-111.
[102]胡壮麟.有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考[J].外国语，1996（1）：1-8.
[103]胡壮麟等.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2005(9)：264-272.
[104]黄振定.试析英汉语篇逻辑连接的异同[J].外语与外语教学，2007（1）：39-42.
[105]方程.中国学生英语作文中词汇衔接手段的研究分析[J].山东外语教学，2002（3）：19-21.
[106]贾冠杰.第二语言习得理论之间的矛盾统一性[J].外语与外语教学，200（412）：34-36.
[107]简庆闽，陆建平，潘珣祎.大学英语书面表达的连贯性评价和缺陷分析[J].外语教学与研究，2003（9）：359-363.
[108]姜海英，庄新辉.基于语料库的中国学生连接词误用习得研究[J].长春理工大学学报（社会科学版），2009（5）：484-489.
[109]蒋丽平，杨彩云.衔接理论与大学英语写作教学的改进[J].河北师范大学学报，2008（11）：132-137.
[110]蒋平，王丽萍.英语专业学生议论文写作错误跟踪调查[J].山东外语教学，2008（2）：51-54.
[111]梁茂成，李文中，许家金.语料库应用教程[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2011,11：3、20-23、33、93-94.
[112]李长忠.语篇的衔接、连贯与大学英语写作[J].外语与外语教学，2002（11）：25-28.
[113]李志雪.从语义连贯角度谈如何提高英语专业学生的写作能力[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2000（3）：51-54.
[114]刘宓庆.汉英对比研究的理论问题（上）[J].外国语，1991（4）：8-18.
[115]刘宓庆.汉英对比研究的理论问题（上）[J].外国语，1991（5）：44-48
[116]刘丽，金娇.论逻辑连接词在英语议论文写作中的应用[J].通话师范学院学报：2005（9），87-89.
[117]卢山.大学生英语写作中语篇衔接与连贯的错误分析[J].湘潭师范学院学报，2005（1）：113-114.
[118]罗一.研究生英语论文中连接副词使用情况调查[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2003(1):：59-62.
[119]马广惠.中美大学生英语语篇对比修辞分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2001(6).5-8.
[120]莫俊华.中国学生在议论文写作中使用因果连接词的语料库研究[J].外语教学,2005(9)：45-50.
[121]苗兴伟.论衔接与连贯的关系[J].外国语，1998，（4）：44-49.
[122]苗兴伟.《语篇衔接与连贯理论的发展及应用》评介[J].外语与外语教学，2004（2）：58-59.
[123]宁春岩.对第二语言习得研究中的某些全程性问题的理论语言学批评[J].外语与外语教学，2001（6）：2-6.
[124]潘文国，杨自检.新时期汉英对比的历史检阅[J].外国语，2008,（11）：86-91.
[125]潘璠,冯跃进.非英专业研究生写作中连接词用法的语料库调查[J].现代外语,2004(2)：157-162.
[126]潘文国，谭慧敏.对比语言学：历史与哲学思考[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006：257-312.
[127]钱军.对比语言学浅说[J].外语学刊，1990（1）：12-16.
[128]秦晓晴，文秋芳.中国大学生英语写作能力发展规律与特点研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社，2007（4），97-164、213-244.
[129]施巍巍，李莉.错误分析在调查大学英语写作照应衔接手段中的应用[J].大连海事大学学报，2005（12）：109-111.
[130]寿玲玲.衔接教学在中学生英语说明文写作中的应用[J].牡丹江教育学院学报，2005（6）：84-87.
[131]苏晓玉.大学英语写作中的语篇连贯问题[J].郑州工业大学学报，2000（6）：59-62.
[132]王彩丽.连接手段在英文写作中的衔接功能分析及应用[J].外国语言文学，2003（2）：20-27.
[133]王立非，张岩.大学生英语议论文高频动词使用的语料库研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（3）：110-116.
[134]文秋芳,王立非,梁茂成.中国学生英语口笔语语料库[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2009，4:35-36、37-38.
[135]文秋芳，丁言任，王文宇.中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向[J].外语教学与研究，2003（7）：268-274.
[136]吴晓春,都平.从英语写作看中西思维模式差异[J].北京交通大学学报，2006(12):92-96.
[137]吴晓春，杨忠.中介语语篇中的逻辑连接词使用研究述评[J].北京交通大学学报，2011(1):126-130.
[138]吴晓春,杨忠.认知视角与外语学习者逻辑连接词使用错误[J].认知视角与外语学者逻辑连接词使用错误，东北师大学报（哲学社会科学）,2011(1):139-142.
[139]吴晓春，语料库多向对比研究逻辑连接词的新发现[J].中国外语，2012(3):81-89.
[140]王寅.认知语言学与语篇连贯研究[J].外语研究，2006（6）：6-12.
[141]徐玉臣.词汇衔接与作文质量的关系[J].国外外语教学，2000（2）：33-37.
[142]徐玉臣.英语作文衔接模式与衔接错误的对比分析[J].国外外语教学，2003（3）：54-60.
[143]刑福义.现代汉语教程[M].武汉：湖北科学技术出版社,1994.
[144]刑福义.复句与关系词语[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1985：12-194.
[145]许余龙.对比语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992：202-241、361-397.
[146]晏尚元.英语专业学生议论文写作中因果连接词使用的语料库研究[J].山东外语教学，2009（5）：75-80.
[147]叶琳.衔接手段与英语写作质量[J].四川教育学院学报，2002（3）：49-50.
[148]游秋暖，A corpus study of linking adverbials in ESL/EFL writing textbooks.Unpublished Master Thesis, National Kaosiung First University of Science andTechnology,2007,11.
[149]赵蔚彬.中国学生英语作文中逻辑连接词使用量化对比分析[J].外语教学,2003(2)：72-77.
[150]张斌.现代汉语描写语法[M].北京：商务印书馆，2010.636-689.
[151]张道真.实用英语语法[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1999：449-465.
[152]张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].外国语，1999（6）：24-31.
[153]张德禄.论语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究，2000（3）：103-109.
[154]张德禄.衔接力与语篇连贯的程度[J].外语与外语教学，2001（1）：9-15.
[155]张德禄.论衔接[J].外国语，2001（2）：，.、-.
[156]张德禄.语篇内部衔接的原则[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2001（6）：26-32.
[157]张德禄.语篇衔接研究的维度[J].中国海洋大学学报，2004（6）：59-64.
[158]张德禄.语篇衔接中的形式与意义[J].外国语，2005（5）：32-38.
[159]张德禄.语篇连贯的宏观原则研究[J].外语与外语教学，2006（10）：7-13.
[160]张德禄，刘汝山.语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006.4-18、30-67.
[161]张德禄，张爱杰.情景语境与语篇的衔接与连贯[J].中国海洋大学学报，2006（1）：44-47.
[162]朱庆明.现代汉语实用语法分析[M].北京：清华大学出版社，2012.119-132.
[163]朱永生，严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.50、52-63、69-86.
[164]朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（上）[J].现代外语，1996（4）：17-20.
[165]朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（下）[J].现代外语，1997（1）：11-14.
[166]朱永生.韩礼德的语篇连贯标准[J].外语教学与研究，1997，（1）：20-24.
[167]朱永生.衔接理论的发展与完善[J].外国语，1995（3）：36-41.
[168]朱永生，郑立信，苗兴伟.英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005（3）.
[2] Altenberg B. Using bilingual corpus evidence in learner corpus research[M]. inSylviane Granger,Joseph Hung and Stephanie Petch Tyson（eds）, Computer LearnerCorpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching,2002：37-54.
[3] Altenberg B. and Tapper M. The Use of Adverbial Connectors in Advanced SwedishLearners’ Written English. Learner English on Computer（Ed. by S. Granger）[M]. London, New York,1998：80-93.
[4] Anne E. The Limitations of Cohesion[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1982（12）：390-393.
[5] Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad,&E. Finegan. Longman Grammar ofSpoken and Written English[J]. Harlow: Pearson Education,2009:875-892.
[6] Bolton, K., Nelson, G.&Hung, J. A Corpus-Based Study Connectors in StudentWriting: Research from The International Corpus of English in Hong Kong(ICE-HK).International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,2002，7(2),165-182.
[7] Brown, G.&Yule, G. Discourse Analysis[M].Cambridge：CUP,1983：223-271.
[8] Carolyn D. Castro. Cohesion and the Social Construction of Meaning in the Essaysof Filipino College Students Writing in L2English[J]. Asia Pacific EducationReview,2004（5）：215-225.
[9] Cherry, R.,8c Cooper, C. Cohesive ties and discourse structure: A study ofaverage and superior texts at four grade levels. Unpublished manuscript,Department of Learning and Instruction, State University of New York at Buffalo,1980.
[10] Cheryl Wei-yu Chen. The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papersof advanced Taiwanese EFL learners [J].International Journal of CorpusLinguistics,2006（11）：113-130.
[11] Conrad Susan M. Investigating Academic Texts with Corpus-Based techniques: AnExample From Biology[J]. Linguistics and Education,1996（8）：299-326.
[12] Conrad S. M.. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers[J].System,1999（27）：1-18.
[13] Crewe, W. C. Wright,&M. W. K. Leung. Connectives: on the other hand, who needsthem, though?[J]. Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching,1985（8）：61-75.
[14] Crewe, W., C. The illogic of logical connectors [M]. EFL Journal,1990,44:316-25.
[15] Crowhurst, M. Cohesion in argumentative prose. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.1981.
[16] David M. Bell. Correlative and Non-correlative “on the other hand”[J].Journal of Pragmatics,2004（36）：2179-2184.
[17] Deng Fei. The effect of the use of adverbial connectors on Chinese EFL learnersEnglish Writing quality [J]. CELEA Journal2006, Vol.29.105-111.
[18] Deng Yaochen.Use of Adverbial Connectors in Chinese EFL Learners ArgumentativeWriting[J]CELEA Journal,2006（12）：32-36.
[19] Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad and Randi Reppen. Corpus-based Approaches to Issuesin Applied Linguistics[J]. Applied linguistics,1994（15）：169-189.
[20] Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad and Randi Reppen. Corpus-based Investigations ofLanguage Use[J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,1996（16）：115-136.
[21] Douglas Biber. Corpus-based and Corpus-driven Analyses of Language Variationand Use[M]. in The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis,2010：159-191.
[22] Elizabeth J. Pretorius. The Comprehension of Logical Relations in ExpositoryTexts by Students Who Study Through the Medium of ESL[J]. System,2006（34）：432-450.
[23] Esther Geva. The Role of Conjunctions in L2Text Comprehension[J]. TESOLQuarterly,1992（26）：731-747.
[24] Fanny Meunier. Computer tools for the analysis of learner corpora[M]. inSylviane Granger(eds), Learner English on Computer, New York: Longman,1998：19-37.
[25] Field, Y.&L. M. O. Yip A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in theEnglish essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English [J].RELC Journal,1992,23(1),15-28.
[26] George A McCulley. Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion[J].Research in theTeaching of English,1985（10）：269-282.
[27]Gorjian Bahman, Pazhakh Abdolreza, Naghizadeh Mohammad. Comparative Study ofConjunctive Adverbials (CAs) in Native Researchers’(NRs) and Non-NativeResearchers’(NNRs) Experimental Articles[J].Advances in Asian Social Science,2012,(1):244-247.
[28] Granger, S. and Tyson, S. Connector usage in the English essay writing of nativeand non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes1996,15(1):17-27.
[29] Gyula Tankó. The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian universitystudents’ argumentative essays. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching.(Ed. ByJohn McH. Sinclair)[M] John Benjamins, USA,2004:157-181.
[30] Halliday, M. A. K. Language structure and language function. In John Lyons (ed.)New Horizaons in Lignuistics[M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.1970:140-165.
[31] Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976:226-273.
[32] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Arnold,1994:323-329.
[33] Hartnett, Carolyn G. Static and dynamic cohesion: signals of thinking inwriting. In Functional Approaches to Writing (Edited by B. Couture)[M]. London:Pinter.1986:142-151.
[34] Helen Basturkmen. Clause Relations and Macro Patterns: Cohesion, Coherence andthe Writing of Advanced ESOL Students[J].Forum,2002（1）：50-56.
[35] Horning Alice. Readable Writing: The Role of Cohesion and Redundancy[J].Journal of Advanced Composition,1991，（11）：135-145.
[36] Icy Lee. Teaching Coherence to ESL Students: a Classroom Inquiry [J]. Journalof Second Language Writing,2002（11）：135-159.
[37] James, Carl. Contrastive Analysis [M]. Harlow, Essex: Longman Group Ltd.2005:80-92；94-114.
[38] Jennifer Thurstun&Christopher N. Candlin[J]. English for Specific purposes,1998（17）：267-280.
[39] Jerome L. Neuner. Cohesive Ties and Chains in Good and Poor FreshmanEssays[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1987（2）：92-105.
[40] Johnson, P. Cohesion and Coherence in Compositions in Malay and English[J].R. E.L. C. JOURNAL，1992（23）：1-34.
[41] Kausar Husain. Transfer of Conjunctions in ESL Writing[J].Language In India,2008（4）：1-19.
[42] Lei Lei. Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics byChinese doctoral students[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes2012,(11):267-275.
[43] Lina Bikeliene. Resultive Connectors in Advanced Lithuanian Learners’EnglishWriting[J]KALBOTYRA,2008,59（3）：30-36.
[44]Liu Dilin. Linking Adverbials: An Across-register Corpus Study and itsImplications[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,2008（13）：491-518.
[45] Liu Meihua&George Braine. Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Producedby Chinese Undergraduates[J]. System,2005（12）：623-636.
[46] Lou Burnard. Where did we Go Wrong? A Retrospective Look at the British NationalCorpus[M].Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis(ed. by BernhardKetemann, Georg Marko)2009：51-68.
[47] Luisa Carrio Pastor. The use of connectors in scientific articles by nativeAnd non-native writers[J]. English for Specific Purposes World.2006,Issue2(13),Volume5:1-8.
[48] Mann W. C.&Thompson S. A. Two views of rhetrorical structure theory.http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~billmann/WMlinguistic/twovsend.doc.
[49] Mann, B. An introduction to rhetorical structure theory (RST).http://www.sil.org/\~{}mannb/rst/rintro99.htm.
[50] Mann, W.C.,&Thompson, S.A. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a unctionaltheory of text organization[J]. Text,1988,8(3):243-281.
[51] Masumi Narita, Chieko Sato&Masatoshi Sugiura. Connector Usage in the EnglishEssay Writing of Japanese EFL Learners，http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2004/pdf/48.pdf.
[52] McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers[M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1991.
[53] Milton, J.&E. S. C. Tsang. A corpus-based study of logical connectors inEFL students’writingdirections for further research [M]. In R. Pemberton&E. S.C. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in Lexis. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Universityof Science and Technology Language Centre,1993:215-246.
[54] Miranda Y. P. LEE. Structure and Cohesion of English Narratives by Nordic andChinese Students[J]. Nordlyd,2003（31）：290-302.
[55] Nadja Nesselhauf. Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching
[M].in John McH. Sinclair(eds). How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching,2004：125-157.
[56] Tankó Gyula. The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’argumentative essays[M].in John McH. Sinclair(eds). How to Use Corpora inLanguage Teaching,2004：157-181.
[57] Narita M., Sato C. and Sugiura M. Connector Usage in the English Essay Writingof Japanese EFL Learners [J]. In Proceedings of4thInternational Conferenceon Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC),2004,1171-1174.
[58] Neuner, Jerome L. Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays.Research in the Teaching of English,1987,21,92-103.
[59] Pamela Spycher. Academic Writing of Adolescent English Learners: Learning touse “although”[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,2007（16）：238-254.
[60] Patricia L. Carrell. Cohesion is not Coherence[J]. TESOL Quarterly,1982（12）：479-488.
[61] Peacock, M. Linking adverbials in research articles across eight disciplines.Iberica,2010，（10）：9-33.
[62] Philip Shaw. Linking Adverbials in Student and Professional Writing in LiteraryStudies: What Makes Writing Mature[M]. in Maggie Charles, Diane Pecorari andSusan Hunston(eds). Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus andDiscourse,New York：2009，215-235.
[63] Pilar Aguado-Jiménez, Pascual Pérez-Paredes, Purificación Sánchez. Exploringthe use of multidimensional andlysi of learner language to promote registerawareness[J]. System,2012（40）：90-103.
[64] Rahimi Ali,&Qannadzadeh Jamal-addin. Quantitative usage of logicalconnectors in Iranians’ EFL essay writing and logical and linguisticintelligences[J]. http://www.Sciencedirect.com.
[65] Richard Watson Todd, Somreudee Khongput and Pornapit Darasawang. Coherence,Cohesion and Comments on Students’ Academic Essays.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293507000050
[66] Robert Lado. Linguistics Across Culture [M]. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.1957.
[67] Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech,&J. Savartvik A comprehensive grammar ofthe English language[M]. London: Longman,1985:441-449；645-647；920-928.
[68] Robert J. Tiernery&James H. Mosenthal. Cohesion and Textual Coherence[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1983（10）：215-229.
[69] Sinclair, J. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M].Oxford：Oxford UniversityPress,1991：27-36；107-109.
[70] Stephen P. Witte&Lester Faigley. Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality[J].College Composition and Communication,1981（5）：189-204.
[71] Steve Chiang. The Importance of Cohesive Conditions to Perceptions of WritingQuality at the Early Stages of Foreign language Learning [J].System,2003（31）：471-484.
[72] Svenja Adolphs&Phoebe M. S. Lin. Corpus Linguistics[M]. in James Simpson(eds),The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics, USA&Canada,2011：597-610.
[73] Sylviane Granger. The computer learner corpus: a versatile new source of datafor SLA research [M]. in Sylviane Granger(eds), Learner English on Computer,NewYork: Longman,1998：3-18.
[74] Sylviane Granger. A Bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research[M]. in SylvianeGranger, Joseph Hung and Stephanie Petch Tyson（eds）, Computer Learner Corpora,Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching,2002：1-32.
[75] Sylviane Granger&Chris Tribble. Learner corpus data in the foreign languageclassroom: form-focused instruction and data-driven learning[M]. in SylvianeGranger(eds), Learner English on Computer, New York: Longman,1998：199-209.
[76] Tatjana Balazic Bulc. Connectors in Students’ Academic Writing in Two CloselyRelated Languageshttp://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2005-journal/Contrastive Corpus Linguistics/Connectors in studentsacademic writing. doc
[77] Tierney, R. and Mosenthal, J. Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in theTeaching of English,1983，17：215-229.
[78] Thompson S.A.&Mann W. C. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Frarnework for theAnalysis of Textst. IPM Papers in Pragmatics I,1987，（1)：79-lO5.
[79] Van Dijk, T. A. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmaticsof Discourse[M].London：Longman，1977.
[80] Wikborg, Eleanor.‘Types of Coherence Breaks in University StudentWriting,’in N. E. Enkvist (ed.), Coherence and Composition: A Symposium, AboAkademisKopieringscentral,1985：93-133.
[81] Witte, S.,&Faigley, L.Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. CollegeComposition and Communication,1981，（32）：189-203.
[82] Yeung Lorrita. Use and misus of ‘besides’: A corpus study comparing nativespeakers’ and learners’ English [J]. System,2009,(37):330-342.
[83] Zamel, V. Teaching those missing links in writing. EFL Journal,1983，37：22-29.
[84] Zhang Xuemei. A Cprpus-based Study on Chinese EFL Learners Use of AdverbialConjuncts[J]. CELEA Journal,2007（4）：34-40.
[85] Zhou Xin-hong. Application of English Cohesion Theory in the Teaching of Writingto Chinese Graduate Students[J].US-China Education Review,2007（7）：31-37.
[86]陈玫.英语写作中衔接语作用的实证研究[J].闽江学院学报，2005（2）：83-87.
[87]陈声威.产生出练习在二语习得中的作用[J].西安外国语大学学报，2007（6）：85-90.
[88]陈新仁，吴珏.中国英语学习者对因果类话语标记语的使用情况[J].国外外语教学,2006(3)：38-41.
[89]陈新仁.话语联系语与英语议论文写作：调查分析[J].外语教学与研究，2002（9）：350-354.
[90]陈渝.中国学生英语写作中的常见衔接错误分析[J].零陵学院学报，2005（3）：149-151.
[91]程晓堂，王琦.从小句关系看学生英语作文的连贯性[J].外语教学与研究，2004（7）：292-298.
[92]初良龙，赵成发.工科院校学生英语议论文写作中转折连接词使用研究[J].外语界，2011（5）：9-15.
[93]戴炜栋，蔡龙权.中介语的认知发生基础[J].外语与外语教学，2001（9）：2-6.
[94]戴炜栋，束定芳.对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题[J].外国语，1994（5）：1-7.
[95]邓飞.连接副词的语用功能与使用情况调查[J].大连海事大学学报（社会科学版）：2009（2），114-117.
[96]邓耀臣.学习者语料库与第二语言习得研究述评[J].外语界,2007(1)：16-21.
[97]董俊虹.大学生英语写作中语篇衔接与连贯的错误分析[J].外语教学，1999,（1）：83-86.
[98]桂诗春.以语料库为基础的中国学习者英语失误分析的认知模型[J].现代外语，2004(5),Vol.27：129-139.
[99]郭纯洁.语篇连贯性的认知基础[J].现代外语，2003（1）：14-21.
[100]桂诗春,宁春岩.语言学方法论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1998：93-107、333-346.
[101]胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1994：92-111.
[102]胡壮麟.有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考[J].外国语，1996（1）：1-8.
[103]胡壮麟等.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2005(9)：264-272.
[104]黄振定.试析英汉语篇逻辑连接的异同[J].外语与外语教学，2007（1）：39-42.
[105]方程.中国学生英语作文中词汇衔接手段的研究分析[J].山东外语教学，2002（3）：19-21.
[106]贾冠杰.第二语言习得理论之间的矛盾统一性[J].外语与外语教学，200（412）：34-36.
[107]简庆闽，陆建平，潘珣祎.大学英语书面表达的连贯性评价和缺陷分析[J].外语教学与研究，2003（9）：359-363.
[108]姜海英，庄新辉.基于语料库的中国学生连接词误用习得研究[J].长春理工大学学报（社会科学版），2009（5）：484-489.
[109]蒋丽平，杨彩云.衔接理论与大学英语写作教学的改进[J].河北师范大学学报，2008（11）：132-137.
[110]蒋平，王丽萍.英语专业学生议论文写作错误跟踪调查[J].山东外语教学，2008（2）：51-54.
[111]梁茂成，李文中，许家金.语料库应用教程[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2011,11：3、20-23、33、93-94.
[112]李长忠.语篇的衔接、连贯与大学英语写作[J].外语与外语教学，2002（11）：25-28.
[113]李志雪.从语义连贯角度谈如何提高英语专业学生的写作能力[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2000（3）：51-54.
[114]刘宓庆.汉英对比研究的理论问题（上）[J].外国语，1991（4）：8-18.
[115]刘宓庆.汉英对比研究的理论问题（上）[J].外国语，1991（5）：44-48
[116]刘丽，金娇.论逻辑连接词在英语议论文写作中的应用[J].通话师范学院学报：2005（9），87-89.
[117]卢山.大学生英语写作中语篇衔接与连贯的错误分析[J].湘潭师范学院学报，2005（1）：113-114.
[118]罗一.研究生英语论文中连接副词使用情况调查[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2003(1):：59-62.
[119]马广惠.中美大学生英语语篇对比修辞分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2001(6).5-8.
[120]莫俊华.中国学生在议论文写作中使用因果连接词的语料库研究[J].外语教学,2005(9)：45-50.
[121]苗兴伟.论衔接与连贯的关系[J].外国语，1998，（4）：44-49.
[122]苗兴伟.《语篇衔接与连贯理论的发展及应用》评介[J].外语与外语教学，2004（2）：58-59.
[123]宁春岩.对第二语言习得研究中的某些全程性问题的理论语言学批评[J].外语与外语教学，2001（6）：2-6.
[124]潘文国，杨自检.新时期汉英对比的历史检阅[J].外国语，2008,（11）：86-91.
[125]潘璠,冯跃进.非英专业研究生写作中连接词用法的语料库调查[J].现代外语,2004(2)：157-162.
[126]潘文国，谭慧敏.对比语言学：历史与哲学思考[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006：257-312.
[127]钱军.对比语言学浅说[J].外语学刊，1990（1）：12-16.
[128]秦晓晴，文秋芳.中国大学生英语写作能力发展规律与特点研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社，2007（4），97-164、213-244.
[129]施巍巍，李莉.错误分析在调查大学英语写作照应衔接手段中的应用[J].大连海事大学学报，2005（12）：109-111.
[130]寿玲玲.衔接教学在中学生英语说明文写作中的应用[J].牡丹江教育学院学报，2005（6）：84-87.
[131]苏晓玉.大学英语写作中的语篇连贯问题[J].郑州工业大学学报，2000（6）：59-62.
[132]王彩丽.连接手段在英文写作中的衔接功能分析及应用[J].外国语言文学，2003（2）：20-27.
[133]王立非，张岩.大学生英语议论文高频动词使用的语料库研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（3）：110-116.
[134]文秋芳,王立非,梁茂成.中国学生英语口笔语语料库[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2009，4:35-36、37-38.
[135]文秋芳，丁言任，王文宇.中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向[J].外语教学与研究，2003（7）：268-274.
[136]吴晓春,都平.从英语写作看中西思维模式差异[J].北京交通大学学报，2006(12):92-96.
[137]吴晓春，杨忠.中介语语篇中的逻辑连接词使用研究述评[J].北京交通大学学报，2011(1):126-130.
[138]吴晓春,杨忠.认知视角与外语学习者逻辑连接词使用错误[J].认知视角与外语学者逻辑连接词使用错误，东北师大学报（哲学社会科学）,2011(1):139-142.
[139]吴晓春，语料库多向对比研究逻辑连接词的新发现[J].中国外语，2012(3):81-89.
[140]王寅.认知语言学与语篇连贯研究[J].外语研究，2006（6）：6-12.
[141]徐玉臣.词汇衔接与作文质量的关系[J].国外外语教学，2000（2）：33-37.
[142]徐玉臣.英语作文衔接模式与衔接错误的对比分析[J].国外外语教学，2003（3）：54-60.
[143]刑福义.现代汉语教程[M].武汉：湖北科学技术出版社,1994.
[144]刑福义.复句与关系词语[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1985：12-194.
[145]许余龙.对比语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992：202-241、361-397.
[146]晏尚元.英语专业学生议论文写作中因果连接词使用的语料库研究[J].山东外语教学，2009（5）：75-80.
[147]叶琳.衔接手段与英语写作质量[J].四川教育学院学报，2002（3）：49-50.
[148]游秋暖，A corpus study of linking adverbials in ESL/EFL writing textbooks.Unpublished Master Thesis, National Kaosiung First University of Science andTechnology,2007,11.
[149]赵蔚彬.中国学生英语作文中逻辑连接词使用量化对比分析[J].外语教学,2003(2)：72-77.
[150]张斌.现代汉语描写语法[M].北京：商务印书馆，2010.636-689.
[151]张道真.实用英语语法[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1999：449-465.
[152]张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].外国语，1999（6）：24-31.
[153]张德禄.论语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究，2000（3）：103-109.
[154]张德禄.衔接力与语篇连贯的程度[J].外语与外语教学，2001（1）：9-15.
[155]张德禄.论衔接[J].外国语，2001（2）：，.、-.
[156]张德禄.语篇内部衔接的原则[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2001（6）：26-32.
[157]张德禄.语篇衔接研究的维度[J].中国海洋大学学报，2004（6）：59-64.
[158]张德禄.语篇衔接中的形式与意义[J].外国语，2005（5）：32-38.
[159]张德禄.语篇连贯的宏观原则研究[J].外语与外语教学，2006（10）：7-13.
[160]张德禄，刘汝山.语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006.4-18、30-67.
[161]张德禄，张爱杰.情景语境与语篇的衔接与连贯[J].中国海洋大学学报，2006（1）：44-47.
[162]朱庆明.现代汉语实用语法分析[M].北京：清华大学出版社，2012.119-132.
[163]朱永生，严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.50、52-63、69-86.
[164]朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（上）[J].现代外语，1996（4）：17-20.
[165]朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（下）[J].现代外语，1997（1）：11-14.
[166]朱永生.韩礼德的语篇连贯标准[J].外语教学与研究，1997，（1）：20-24.
[167]朱永生.衔接理论的发展与完善[J].外国语，1995（3）：36-41.
[168]朱永生，郑立信，苗兴伟.英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005（3）.
© 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 |