脉辨
|
摘要
语言学界的连贯研究迄今为止已经有三十余年的历史。三十余年来,连贯作为热点问题在国内外虽然一直吸引着研究者的注意力,然而,有关连贯的两个基本问题却一直没有得到彻底的解决。连贯是什么?连贯何以可能?对这两个基本问题的不同回答,标志着连贯研究的不同认识。本研究的中心任务就是从既有的连贯研究出发,考察既有连贯研究所出现的问题的成因,重新确定连贯的概念性质,从话语互动的角度去考察连贯的形成机制,从而试图建立连贯研究的新方法——话语连贯的脉络辨析法,简称“脉辨法”。
既有的连贯研究多倾向于把连贯确定为语篇特征,把连贯限定在篇章语言学的范畴。这样一来,对连贯的概念性质的认识就相应地出现了以语篇形式为中心的考察方法。韩礼德和哈桑的衔接研究堪称连贯研究的语言形式法的典型方法,这种方法的立足点是把连贯当成一个形式化的科学概念,试图通过对语言形式手段的考察来揭示连贯的本质。然而,正如恩克维斯特所发现的那样,语言形式手段齐备却并不能保证连贯的开显。恩克维斯特所关注的这一问题,本研究把它称之为“恩克维斯特问题”。本研究从思考“恩克维斯特问题”出发,结合考虑国内学者张德禄对连贯研究尚无系统理论出现而感到的困惑,着眼于对日常话语互动所显现的连贯现象的反思,打算把连贯研究置于话语互动中来考察“连贯何以可能”这一问题。
既有的连贯研究存在的局限有:第一,对连贯的概念性质认识不够充分,甚至误把“衔接”同“连贯”当成地位等同的姊妹概念;第二,局限于语篇研究,把连贯当成语篇的固有特征(或称内在特征),企图通过对连贯的构建方式的考察而有意无意地努力寻找或建立语篇连贯的普遍模式;第三,认识到了连贯的语义性质,但由于对语义的流变特性缺乏确定的衡量标准,从而无法以某种具体的方法来统领连贯研究。
基于以上认识,本研究认为,在概念性质上,连贯更多的是一个哲学概念,而不是一个形式化程度极高的科学概念:连贯反映的是话语双方的思维,关涉的是人的“在世问题”。在存在方式上,连贯具有开显和隐蔽的特性;连贯是话语互动的连贯,而不是固定语篇固有的连贯;连贯是话语双方在话语理解过程中共同创造的。在形成机制上,连贯表现为发话者和受话者双方话语的两两相接,而两两相接的基本单位就是双方连贯因子的两两相接;话语双方各自都有连贯因子,而连贯因子的集合就是个人的连贯因子库;个人连贯因子库的大小标志着个人话语累积的基本情况;话语双方在互动中需要进行立言、说事、表情和讲理等方面的交流,于是连贯的脉络可以分为语脉、意脉、情脉和理脉。在衡量方法上,对话语双方连贯的考察的核心就是双方在互动中的理解活动;话语理解就是双方在凸显的话语脉络层面上追求最大的共晓性;话语双方共晓性的达成反映了连贯与理性,连贯与知识,连贯与他心,连贯与纯粹经验,连贯与意向立场,连贯与交往理性等方面的关系。从连贯的脉络结构看,话语双方的不同脉络因子的贯通可以通过话语理解的合作原则来描述;话语双方对理解的合作原则的遵守与违背都是话语互动的正常现象,即无论是纯脉连贯的构建还是杂脉连贯的形成,都可在理解的合作原则下进行描述。
本研究成文后分为七章。第一章导言,主要介绍本研究的选题缘由,研究的目标,研究的方法及观点预设。本章明确提出本研究的中心问题瞄准的是“连贯何以可能”。本章指出,连贯是话语互动的连贯,话语(包括口头和书面话语)之所以为话语就在于人的话语互动;话语并不是作为语言学的具体对象而存在,话语是生活形式、话语理解、以及话语共晓性的统一。话语互动赖以进行的基础就在于不同脉络层面的连贯构建。连贯研究就是对话语互动中不同脉络的贯通情况进行描述与分析,就是进行“脉”辨。连贯具有两两相接的机制,对连贯的考察就要采取断面分析。
第二章连贯的语言学解释,是文本研究的文献综述。本章旨在理清既有连贯研究的现状,分析连贯研究现有问题的成因。本章梳理了语言学界连贯研究的既有成果,归纳了连贯研究的三类方法:语言形式法、语用推理法和认知心理法。本章指出,这三类方法基于一个共同认识就是连贯是给定的,连贯要么随语篇的存在而存在,要么存在于语境中,要么存在于大脑里;连贯研究的任务似乎就是挖掘语篇固有连贯的形成机制。在语言学的解释维度下,连贯是一个形式化的固有概念。本章明确指出连贯更多的是一个哲学概念,应该从哲学概念考察的维度去认识连贯。
第三章连贯的哲学解释,是本研究的理论依据。本章从对连贯这一概念进行重新考察入手,从常识的角度、文章学的角度、心理学的角度和哲学的角度分析了连贯最基本的含义。本章强调,把连贯还原成最原初的关系的话,那么连贯的基本含义就是“两两相连”、“两两相接”或“两两相关”。连贯是人与人的连贯,而且这些领域本身关涉着人,关涉着人的在世。于是,本章指出,话语连贯是话语双方两个人的关系,而两个人的关系则可以进一步细分,即进行充分分析。在充分分析的视角下,话语互动的连贯直接关涉的是理性、交往理性、知识、纯粹经验、他心感知、意向立场等等。本章尝试性地考察了连贯与这些概念的关系。
第四章话语连贯的规范性,是对本研究中心问题的仔细剖析。本章指出,连贯不是规则性问题,而是规范性问题。本章以规范作为尺度重点讨论了连贯的多样性及本质成因。连贯体现在话语片段上,而话语片段直接与语词、概念等直接相关。对语词与意义的不同理解正好反映的是话语连贯的多样性。话语累积的不同意味着话语双方连贯构建的不同。话语概念可分为原生概念和次生概念。次生概念的产生往往是以语词作为资源对原生概念的加工利用。在原生概念上我们可以谈论直接指称及指称物的存在,而在次生概念层面上,次生概念语词所指称的对象往往不在物理世界存在。连贯的基础是两两相接,而两两相接可能表现在话语片段或语词的对应上。所以,对话语片段、语词及其相应概念的考察实际上是对连贯的基本点进行考察。本章还讨论了不同的词义观,简略地评述了柏拉图、亚里士多德、洛克、贝克莱、莱布尼兹、穆勒、弗雷格、罗素和斯特劳森等人的观点。对这些观点的回顾与评述,目的是为本研究的话语累积论所涉及的原生概念和次生概念寻找相应的理论渊源。本章提出了话语累积论和连贯因子说。
第五章话语连贯与理解。主要提出连贯研究的新观点和方法。本章把话语脉络贯通所形成的连贯细分为语脉连贯、情脉连贯、意脉连贯和理脉连贯,详细界定了语脉、情脉、意脉和理脉着四个核心概念,并分别进行了例证说明。以理解为核心,本章在格莱斯会话合作原则的启示下,探讨了话语双方的理解本性。本章对陈嘉映提出的“理解的合作原则”做了扩展,提出了理解的合作原则的总原则及相应的四个守则。
第六章理解的合作原则与连贯的脉络结构,主要对本研究建立的连贯研究方法进行分析论证。本章指出,理解的合作原则及其四个守则为衡量话语互动的连贯机制提供了描述性原则。从理解的合作原则的总原则看,话语双方至少要在一个凸显的脉络层面上追求话语的最大共晓性。话语理解并不以语言形式关系的理解为终极目标,而是话语双方在语脉、意脉、情脉、理脉上达成生活形式的理解。本章还按照首要脉络凸显的种类不同,分析了四种脉贯实例:即语脉凸显的杂脉连贯、情脉凸显的杂脉连贯、意脉凸显的杂脉连贯和理脉凸显的杂脉连贯。
第七章结论,总结了本研究的全新思想,归纳了本研究的创新观点,并指出了本研究的实际应用价值。
Coherence analysis has undergone in linguistics an academic history of more than 30 years, during which coherence remains not fully understood and a matter of continuing debate, arresting the globe-wide attention of analysts,who remain committed to striving for a generally accepted answer to two questions essential to the study of coherence:What is coherence? How is coherence possible? Centering upon the two questions,our commitment to coherence analysis is geared to the central objective of diagnosing the cause of problems which are haunting coherence analysts,defining anew the concept of coherence which is plausibly categorized and unfortunately limited into textual linguistics,discovering the mechanism of coherence-achieving that is realized in verbal interaction,and developing a new approach to coherence analysis that is supposed to identify the expression lines in verbal interaction.Thus, the new approach proposed in this research is termed Line Identification for Coherence Analysis-LICA,in initials.
Before the new approach is proposed in this research,most approaches primarily treats coherence as a text-inherent property.Ever since the publication of Halliday and Hasan's book Cohesion in English in 1976,coherence analysis has witnessed a trend in the field of text study which tends to reduce coherence to a product of formally-represented cohesion and/or semantically-established connectivity.Coherence is regarded as a formalized scientific concept, the essence of which presumably can be revealed through investigating the formal cohesive means of expression.However,as Enkvist puts it,there is a problem awaiting solution that a text with ample cohesive means may well be quite incoherent.This problem is called "Enkvist's problem".The present research is intended for providing insights into Enkvist's problem and is fixated on responding to Zhang Deln's quest for a systematically-adequate theory of coherence. Based upon our observations and reflections on the coherence achieved in ordinary verbal interaction,this research is conducted in concern with the question-How is coherence possible?
This research has found that three views can be found defective in the past study of coherence.Firstly,the concept of coherence in its complexity is not fully understood.In practice, more or less,coherence is interpreted in an identical way that cohesion is measured.Secondly, there's a tendency to confine coherence within a text.When coherence is presumed as an intrinsic defining property of a text,efforts have been made in vain to search for a universal coherence model or mechanism.Thirdly,when coherence finds its right way into semantic consideration,analysts have still to agree on a certain measure of meanings in flux. Consequently,the quest for a universal theory of coherence is still fruitlessly ideal.
On the basis of the above findings,this research claims as follows:
For the part of concept,coherence is a philosophical concept more than a formalized scientific concept.Coherence mirrors the thinking activity of discourse participants.The matter of coherence tells little less than the matter of sanity,and the matter of being-in-the-world.
For the matter of being-in-the-world,coherence is concerned with creation and concealment. Coherence is not a state but a process of verbal interaction.It is a cooperative achievement made by both of the discourse producer and receiver in actual verbal interaction.
In light of the mechanism for coherence creation,it takes the producer and the receiver to cohere.The fundamental points of cohering between the two are assumed to be coherence points.For coherence to be coherence,it takes two to cohere.Both the producer and the receiver of a discourse have their own pool of coherence points respectively.The capacity of a person's pool of coherence points is the indicator of his/her accumulation of verbal expressions.During an actual interaction,the verbal contribution made by the producer and the receiver may well fall into four lines of communication:choosing diction,conveying meanings,expressing emotions and giving reasons.Correspondingly,there are four types of coherence lines:dictional line, intentional line,emotional line,and rational line.
Understanding coherence requires for an understanding of the participants' understanding in a verbal interaction.When the producer and the receiver endeavor to have a mutual understanding in an actual verbal interaction,they aim at the maximal common intelligibility on the salient line of verbal exchange.In the process of achieving the maximal common intelligibility,the relation of coherence to the producer's and/or the receiver's reason,knowledge, sense of other mind,pure experience,intentional stance,and communicative rationality plays a decisive role.
In terms of the structure of coherence lines,the cooperative principle of understanding (CPU)is established to account for different coherence achievement on different coherence lines. As a descriptive principle,CPU can be exploited for measuring the coherence achievement in both cases of conforming to and breaching any maxim of CPU.
This research has crystalized into a dissertation which consists of seven chapters.Chapter One,Introduction,offers a general account of what motivates and triggers our research and what objective we are going to reach.It is clearly stated that this dissertation makes an attempt to tackle the question-How is coherence possible? It is also claimed that coherence is the backbone of successful verbal interaction.The study of coherence should be geared to the purpose of identifying different coherence lines.Coherence can be reduced into the connection of one point to another point.Thus,a cross-section analysis is suggested in this chapter.
Chapter Two,Coherence in Linguistics,serves as a general literature review of oppinions, approaches,and theories that we have found in coherence studies.One of the main tasks in this chapter is to diagnose the cause of problems encountered by analysts.Another task is to summarize the three perspectives in coherence analysis.It has been found that the linguistic-formal perspective,the pragmatic perspective and the cognitive perspective enjoy a same premise that coherence is given either in a text,or in a context,or in the mind of one person or another.This premise is based on one stereotyped idea that coherence is an intrinsic defining property of a text or text users.After a survey of coherence in linguistics,it is held that coherence is a philosophical concept and should be approached from the perspective of conceptual investigation in terms of the philosophy of language.
Chapter Three,Coherence in Philosophy,is designed to discuss the general theoretical underpinnings of this research.This chapter firstly deals with the concept of coherence in ordinary use,coherence in literary works,coherence in philosophy and coherence in psychology. The purpose of the study here is to define anew the concept of coherence.It is pointed out that coherence can be basically interpreted as a two-to-cohere relation.It is believed that it is not text itself but rather people to cohere.When the producer and the receiver are engaged in coherence creation,the relation of coherence to a person's reason,knowledge,pure experience,sense of other mind,intentional stance,and communicative rationality is involved.
Chapter Four,The Normativity of Coherence,is concerned with a detailed analysis of the central problem of this research.This chapter provides an idea that coherence is a normative concept rather than a regulative concept.In other words,coherence is a concept of norms rather than a concept of rules.In line with norms,coherence enjoys diversity in creation.In specifying the norms of coherence,discourse segments may well function as coherence points.Therefore,a pertinent discussion is made of the relation between each two of the three terms,namely, coherence point,discourse segment,and concept.It is stated that the diversity of coherence can be ascribed to the participant's different accumulation of coherence points,or his/her different mastery of discourse segments,or his/her different acquisition of concepts.The participant's system of concepts is composed of primary concepts and secondary concepts.The producer's primary concept may be interpreted as a secondary concept by the receiver,and vice versa.This chapter also offers a general sketch of various views on words and meaning.Such philosophers as Plato,Aristotle,Locke,Berkeley,Leibniz,Mill,Frege,Russell,and Strawson have been incorporated into the discussion of meaning and words.
Chapter Five,Coherence and Understanding,presents a new approach to coherence analysis.On the basis of an investigation into the aspects of understanding,this chapter proposes that coherence lines be classified into four types:dictional line,emotional line,semantic line, and rational line.The diversity of coherence is realized through dietional coherence,emotional coherence,semantic coherence,and rational coherence.In verbal interaction,the creation of coherence is grounded in the producer's and the receiver's mutual understanding.Their understanding may be reached on a salient line by which they have arrived at the maximal common intelligibility.For the sake of describing different coherence,this chapter expounds J. Chen's CPU in accordance with Wittgenstein's view of natural understanding.
Chapter Six,The Cooperative Principle of Understanding and the Structure of Coherence Lines,demonstrates the four maxims of CPU and their application to the analysis of verbal interaction.While checking the accountability of CPU,Grice's problem and G.Qian's views and examples have been reviewed in their full potentials.It is claimed that the structure of coherence lines may be realized either through a salient pure line or a salient mixed line,under which there are for the most part more than two lines in operation in a particular verbal interaction.
Chapter Seven,Conclusion,is a summary of the new ideas on coherence analysis.It is emphasized in this chapter that LICA may help to dissolve the questions that remain unanswered in the past studies of coherence.LICA may also have some significance to foreign language teaching and translation.
既有的连贯研究多倾向于把连贯确定为语篇特征,把连贯限定在篇章语言学的范畴。这样一来,对连贯的概念性质的认识就相应地出现了以语篇形式为中心的考察方法。韩礼德和哈桑的衔接研究堪称连贯研究的语言形式法的典型方法,这种方法的立足点是把连贯当成一个形式化的科学概念,试图通过对语言形式手段的考察来揭示连贯的本质。然而,正如恩克维斯特所发现的那样,语言形式手段齐备却并不能保证连贯的开显。恩克维斯特所关注的这一问题,本研究把它称之为“恩克维斯特问题”。本研究从思考“恩克维斯特问题”出发,结合考虑国内学者张德禄对连贯研究尚无系统理论出现而感到的困惑,着眼于对日常话语互动所显现的连贯现象的反思,打算把连贯研究置于话语互动中来考察“连贯何以可能”这一问题。
既有的连贯研究存在的局限有:第一,对连贯的概念性质认识不够充分,甚至误把“衔接”同“连贯”当成地位等同的姊妹概念;第二,局限于语篇研究,把连贯当成语篇的固有特征(或称内在特征),企图通过对连贯的构建方式的考察而有意无意地努力寻找或建立语篇连贯的普遍模式;第三,认识到了连贯的语义性质,但由于对语义的流变特性缺乏确定的衡量标准,从而无法以某种具体的方法来统领连贯研究。
基于以上认识,本研究认为,在概念性质上,连贯更多的是一个哲学概念,而不是一个形式化程度极高的科学概念:连贯反映的是话语双方的思维,关涉的是人的“在世问题”。在存在方式上,连贯具有开显和隐蔽的特性;连贯是话语互动的连贯,而不是固定语篇固有的连贯;连贯是话语双方在话语理解过程中共同创造的。在形成机制上,连贯表现为发话者和受话者双方话语的两两相接,而两两相接的基本单位就是双方连贯因子的两两相接;话语双方各自都有连贯因子,而连贯因子的集合就是个人的连贯因子库;个人连贯因子库的大小标志着个人话语累积的基本情况;话语双方在互动中需要进行立言、说事、表情和讲理等方面的交流,于是连贯的脉络可以分为语脉、意脉、情脉和理脉。在衡量方法上,对话语双方连贯的考察的核心就是双方在互动中的理解活动;话语理解就是双方在凸显的话语脉络层面上追求最大的共晓性;话语双方共晓性的达成反映了连贯与理性,连贯与知识,连贯与他心,连贯与纯粹经验,连贯与意向立场,连贯与交往理性等方面的关系。从连贯的脉络结构看,话语双方的不同脉络因子的贯通可以通过话语理解的合作原则来描述;话语双方对理解的合作原则的遵守与违背都是话语互动的正常现象,即无论是纯脉连贯的构建还是杂脉连贯的形成,都可在理解的合作原则下进行描述。
本研究成文后分为七章。第一章导言,主要介绍本研究的选题缘由,研究的目标,研究的方法及观点预设。本章明确提出本研究的中心问题瞄准的是“连贯何以可能”。本章指出,连贯是话语互动的连贯,话语(包括口头和书面话语)之所以为话语就在于人的话语互动;话语并不是作为语言学的具体对象而存在,话语是生活形式、话语理解、以及话语共晓性的统一。话语互动赖以进行的基础就在于不同脉络层面的连贯构建。连贯研究就是对话语互动中不同脉络的贯通情况进行描述与分析,就是进行“脉”辨。连贯具有两两相接的机制,对连贯的考察就要采取断面分析。
第二章连贯的语言学解释,是文本研究的文献综述。本章旨在理清既有连贯研究的现状,分析连贯研究现有问题的成因。本章梳理了语言学界连贯研究的既有成果,归纳了连贯研究的三类方法:语言形式法、语用推理法和认知心理法。本章指出,这三类方法基于一个共同认识就是连贯是给定的,连贯要么随语篇的存在而存在,要么存在于语境中,要么存在于大脑里;连贯研究的任务似乎就是挖掘语篇固有连贯的形成机制。在语言学的解释维度下,连贯是一个形式化的固有概念。本章明确指出连贯更多的是一个哲学概念,应该从哲学概念考察的维度去认识连贯。
第三章连贯的哲学解释,是本研究的理论依据。本章从对连贯这一概念进行重新考察入手,从常识的角度、文章学的角度、心理学的角度和哲学的角度分析了连贯最基本的含义。本章强调,把连贯还原成最原初的关系的话,那么连贯的基本含义就是“两两相连”、“两两相接”或“两两相关”。连贯是人与人的连贯,而且这些领域本身关涉着人,关涉着人的在世。于是,本章指出,话语连贯是话语双方两个人的关系,而两个人的关系则可以进一步细分,即进行充分分析。在充分分析的视角下,话语互动的连贯直接关涉的是理性、交往理性、知识、纯粹经验、他心感知、意向立场等等。本章尝试性地考察了连贯与这些概念的关系。
第四章话语连贯的规范性,是对本研究中心问题的仔细剖析。本章指出,连贯不是规则性问题,而是规范性问题。本章以规范作为尺度重点讨论了连贯的多样性及本质成因。连贯体现在话语片段上,而话语片段直接与语词、概念等直接相关。对语词与意义的不同理解正好反映的是话语连贯的多样性。话语累积的不同意味着话语双方连贯构建的不同。话语概念可分为原生概念和次生概念。次生概念的产生往往是以语词作为资源对原生概念的加工利用。在原生概念上我们可以谈论直接指称及指称物的存在,而在次生概念层面上,次生概念语词所指称的对象往往不在物理世界存在。连贯的基础是两两相接,而两两相接可能表现在话语片段或语词的对应上。所以,对话语片段、语词及其相应概念的考察实际上是对连贯的基本点进行考察。本章还讨论了不同的词义观,简略地评述了柏拉图、亚里士多德、洛克、贝克莱、莱布尼兹、穆勒、弗雷格、罗素和斯特劳森等人的观点。对这些观点的回顾与评述,目的是为本研究的话语累积论所涉及的原生概念和次生概念寻找相应的理论渊源。本章提出了话语累积论和连贯因子说。
第五章话语连贯与理解。主要提出连贯研究的新观点和方法。本章把话语脉络贯通所形成的连贯细分为语脉连贯、情脉连贯、意脉连贯和理脉连贯,详细界定了语脉、情脉、意脉和理脉着四个核心概念,并分别进行了例证说明。以理解为核心,本章在格莱斯会话合作原则的启示下,探讨了话语双方的理解本性。本章对陈嘉映提出的“理解的合作原则”做了扩展,提出了理解的合作原则的总原则及相应的四个守则。
第六章理解的合作原则与连贯的脉络结构,主要对本研究建立的连贯研究方法进行分析论证。本章指出,理解的合作原则及其四个守则为衡量话语互动的连贯机制提供了描述性原则。从理解的合作原则的总原则看,话语双方至少要在一个凸显的脉络层面上追求话语的最大共晓性。话语理解并不以语言形式关系的理解为终极目标,而是话语双方在语脉、意脉、情脉、理脉上达成生活形式的理解。本章还按照首要脉络凸显的种类不同,分析了四种脉贯实例:即语脉凸显的杂脉连贯、情脉凸显的杂脉连贯、意脉凸显的杂脉连贯和理脉凸显的杂脉连贯。
第七章结论,总结了本研究的全新思想,归纳了本研究的创新观点,并指出了本研究的实际应用价值。
Coherence analysis has undergone in linguistics an academic history of more than 30 years, during which coherence remains not fully understood and a matter of continuing debate, arresting the globe-wide attention of analysts,who remain committed to striving for a generally accepted answer to two questions essential to the study of coherence:What is coherence? How is coherence possible? Centering upon the two questions,our commitment to coherence analysis is geared to the central objective of diagnosing the cause of problems which are haunting coherence analysts,defining anew the concept of coherence which is plausibly categorized and unfortunately limited into textual linguistics,discovering the mechanism of coherence-achieving that is realized in verbal interaction,and developing a new approach to coherence analysis that is supposed to identify the expression lines in verbal interaction.Thus, the new approach proposed in this research is termed Line Identification for Coherence Analysis-LICA,in initials.
Before the new approach is proposed in this research,most approaches primarily treats coherence as a text-inherent property.Ever since the publication of Halliday and Hasan's book Cohesion in English in 1976,coherence analysis has witnessed a trend in the field of text study which tends to reduce coherence to a product of formally-represented cohesion and/or semantically-established connectivity.Coherence is regarded as a formalized scientific concept, the essence of which presumably can be revealed through investigating the formal cohesive means of expression.However,as Enkvist puts it,there is a problem awaiting solution that a text with ample cohesive means may well be quite incoherent.This problem is called "Enkvist's problem".The present research is intended for providing insights into Enkvist's problem and is fixated on responding to Zhang Deln's quest for a systematically-adequate theory of coherence. Based upon our observations and reflections on the coherence achieved in ordinary verbal interaction,this research is conducted in concern with the question-How is coherence possible?
This research has found that three views can be found defective in the past study of coherence.Firstly,the concept of coherence in its complexity is not fully understood.In practice, more or less,coherence is interpreted in an identical way that cohesion is measured.Secondly, there's a tendency to confine coherence within a text.When coherence is presumed as an intrinsic defining property of a text,efforts have been made in vain to search for a universal coherence model or mechanism.Thirdly,when coherence finds its right way into semantic consideration,analysts have still to agree on a certain measure of meanings in flux. Consequently,the quest for a universal theory of coherence is still fruitlessly ideal.
On the basis of the above findings,this research claims as follows:
For the part of concept,coherence is a philosophical concept more than a formalized scientific concept.Coherence mirrors the thinking activity of discourse participants.The matter of coherence tells little less than the matter of sanity,and the matter of being-in-the-world.
For the matter of being-in-the-world,coherence is concerned with creation and concealment. Coherence is not a state but a process of verbal interaction.It is a cooperative achievement made by both of the discourse producer and receiver in actual verbal interaction.
In light of the mechanism for coherence creation,it takes the producer and the receiver to cohere.The fundamental points of cohering between the two are assumed to be coherence points.For coherence to be coherence,it takes two to cohere.Both the producer and the receiver of a discourse have their own pool of coherence points respectively.The capacity of a person's pool of coherence points is the indicator of his/her accumulation of verbal expressions.During an actual interaction,the verbal contribution made by the producer and the receiver may well fall into four lines of communication:choosing diction,conveying meanings,expressing emotions and giving reasons.Correspondingly,there are four types of coherence lines:dictional line, intentional line,emotional line,and rational line.
Understanding coherence requires for an understanding of the participants' understanding in a verbal interaction.When the producer and the receiver endeavor to have a mutual understanding in an actual verbal interaction,they aim at the maximal common intelligibility on the salient line of verbal exchange.In the process of achieving the maximal common intelligibility,the relation of coherence to the producer's and/or the receiver's reason,knowledge, sense of other mind,pure experience,intentional stance,and communicative rationality plays a decisive role.
In terms of the structure of coherence lines,the cooperative principle of understanding (CPU)is established to account for different coherence achievement on different coherence lines. As a descriptive principle,CPU can be exploited for measuring the coherence achievement in both cases of conforming to and breaching any maxim of CPU.
This research has crystalized into a dissertation which consists of seven chapters.Chapter One,Introduction,offers a general account of what motivates and triggers our research and what objective we are going to reach.It is clearly stated that this dissertation makes an attempt to tackle the question-How is coherence possible? It is also claimed that coherence is the backbone of successful verbal interaction.The study of coherence should be geared to the purpose of identifying different coherence lines.Coherence can be reduced into the connection of one point to another point.Thus,a cross-section analysis is suggested in this chapter.
Chapter Two,Coherence in Linguistics,serves as a general literature review of oppinions, approaches,and theories that we have found in coherence studies.One of the main tasks in this chapter is to diagnose the cause of problems encountered by analysts.Another task is to summarize the three perspectives in coherence analysis.It has been found that the linguistic-formal perspective,the pragmatic perspective and the cognitive perspective enjoy a same premise that coherence is given either in a text,or in a context,or in the mind of one person or another.This premise is based on one stereotyped idea that coherence is an intrinsic defining property of a text or text users.After a survey of coherence in linguistics,it is held that coherence is a philosophical concept and should be approached from the perspective of conceptual investigation in terms of the philosophy of language.
Chapter Three,Coherence in Philosophy,is designed to discuss the general theoretical underpinnings of this research.This chapter firstly deals with the concept of coherence in ordinary use,coherence in literary works,coherence in philosophy and coherence in psychology. The purpose of the study here is to define anew the concept of coherence.It is pointed out that coherence can be basically interpreted as a two-to-cohere relation.It is believed that it is not text itself but rather people to cohere.When the producer and the receiver are engaged in coherence creation,the relation of coherence to a person's reason,knowledge,pure experience,sense of other mind,intentional stance,and communicative rationality is involved.
Chapter Four,The Normativity of Coherence,is concerned with a detailed analysis of the central problem of this research.This chapter provides an idea that coherence is a normative concept rather than a regulative concept.In other words,coherence is a concept of norms rather than a concept of rules.In line with norms,coherence enjoys diversity in creation.In specifying the norms of coherence,discourse segments may well function as coherence points.Therefore,a pertinent discussion is made of the relation between each two of the three terms,namely, coherence point,discourse segment,and concept.It is stated that the diversity of coherence can be ascribed to the participant's different accumulation of coherence points,or his/her different mastery of discourse segments,or his/her different acquisition of concepts.The participant's system of concepts is composed of primary concepts and secondary concepts.The producer's primary concept may be interpreted as a secondary concept by the receiver,and vice versa.This chapter also offers a general sketch of various views on words and meaning.Such philosophers as Plato,Aristotle,Locke,Berkeley,Leibniz,Mill,Frege,Russell,and Strawson have been incorporated into the discussion of meaning and words.
Chapter Five,Coherence and Understanding,presents a new approach to coherence analysis.On the basis of an investigation into the aspects of understanding,this chapter proposes that coherence lines be classified into four types:dictional line,emotional line,semantic line, and rational line.The diversity of coherence is realized through dietional coherence,emotional coherence,semantic coherence,and rational coherence.In verbal interaction,the creation of coherence is grounded in the producer's and the receiver's mutual understanding.Their understanding may be reached on a salient line by which they have arrived at the maximal common intelligibility.For the sake of describing different coherence,this chapter expounds J. Chen's CPU in accordance with Wittgenstein's view of natural understanding.
Chapter Six,The Cooperative Principle of Understanding and the Structure of Coherence Lines,demonstrates the four maxims of CPU and their application to the analysis of verbal interaction.While checking the accountability of CPU,Grice's problem and G.Qian's views and examples have been reviewed in their full potentials.It is claimed that the structure of coherence lines may be realized either through a salient pure line or a salient mixed line,under which there are for the most part more than two lines in operation in a particular verbal interaction.
Chapter Seven,Conclusion,is a summary of the new ideas on coherence analysis.It is emphasized in this chapter that LICA may help to dissolve the questions that remain unanswered in the past studies of coherence.LICA may also have some significance to foreign language teaching and translation.
引文
Aarsleff, H. From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History[M]. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
Adler, M. J. The Great Ideas[M]. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1992.
Aitchison, J. The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution 言语的萌发:语言起源与进化[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
Allen, J. The Stoics on the Origin of Language and the Foundations of Etymology[A]. In D. Frede and B. Inwood(eds.). Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age[C]. Cambridge.UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005: 36-55.
Aristotle. Metaphysics[M]. Trans. By R. Hope. Columbia University Press, 1952.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benedict, R. Patterns of Culture[M]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.
Benjamin, A. C. Types of Empiricism[J]. The Philosophical Review. 1942. Vol. 51. No. 5: 497-502.
Berkeley, G Principles of Human Knowledge[M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988.
Bichakjian, B. H. Looking for Neural Answers to Linguistic Questions[A]. In M. I. Stamenov & V. Gallese (eds.). Mirrior Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language[C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2002: 323-331.
Bickerton, D. Language and Species[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Blakemore, D. Understanding Utterances[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Bonjour, L. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Brandom, R. B. Action, Norms, and Practical Reseasoning[J]. Nous. 1998. Vol. 32. Supplement. Philosophical Perspectives. 12. Language Mind and Ontology: 127-139.
Brandom, R. B. Facts, Norms, and Normative Facts: Reply to Habermas "From Kant to Hegel: On Robert Brandom's Pragmatic Philosophy of Language"[J]. European Journal of Philosophy. 2000. Vol. 8: 356-374.
Brandom, R. B. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Brown, G & Yule, G Discourse Analysis[M]. Oxford; Blackwell, 1983.
Bublitz, W. Introduction: Views of Coherence[A]. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk and E. Ventola(eds). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
Campbell, K. Coherence, Continuity and cohesion[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, 1995.
Chomsky, N. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory[M]. Hague: Mouton, 1966.
Chomsky, N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use[M]. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc./Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 1985/2002.
Chomsky, N. Language and Cognition[A]. In D. M. Johnson and C. E. Erneling(eds). The Future of the Cognitive Revolution[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997: 15-31.
Chomsky, N. Language and Nature[J]. Mind. 1995. Vol. 104. No. 413: 1-61.
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures[M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
Cooke,M.Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics[M].The MIT Press,1994.
Cornish,E Coherence-The Lifeblood of Anaphora[A].In W.de Mulder & L.Tasmowski(eds.).Coherence and Anaphora[C].Amsterdam:Benjamins.1996,37-54.
D'Amico,R.Contemporary Continental Philosophy[M].Boulder,CL:Westview Press,1999.
Damasio,A.R.Descartes'Error:Emotion,Reason and the Human Brain[M].New York:Hayre Collins,1995.
Damasio,A.R.The Feelings of What Happens:Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness[M].New York:Harcourt Brace,1999.
Danes,F.Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of Text[A].Danes F.Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective[C].Prague:Academic,1974.
Davidson,D.Problems of Rationality[M].Oxford:Oxfirod University Press,2004.
Davidson,D.Thought and Talk[A].In D.Davidson.Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation[M].Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs.2001:155-171.
Davis,W.Implicature[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
De Beaugrande,R.& Dressier,W.U.An Introduction to Text Linguistics[M].London:Longman,1981.
Deacon,T.W.The Symbolic Species:The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain[M].New York:W.W.Norton & Company,Inc.,1997.
Dennett,D.C.The Intentional Stance[M].Cambridge,MA:The MIT Press,1987.
Dilworth,D.The Initial Formations of"Pure Experience" in Nishida Kiaro and William James[J].Monumenta Nipponica.Vol.24.No.1/2:93-111.
Dummett,M.The Interpretation of Frege's Philosophy[M].London:Duckworth,1981.
Durant,W.The Syory of Philosophy[M].Kingsport,TE:Kingsport Press,1950.
Enkvist,N.E.Coherence,Pseudo-coherence,and Non-coherence[A].In J.O.(o|¨)stman(ed.).Cohesion and Semantics[C].Abo,Finland:Abo Akademi Foundation,1978.
Frege,G.On Sense and Reference[A].In M.Baghramian(ed.)Modem Philosophy of Language.Washington,D.C.:Counterpoint,1999:3-25.
Fries,P.On the status of Theme in English[A].In J.Petofi & E.Sozer(eds.).Micro-and Macro-Connexity of Discourse[C].Hamburg:Busde,1983.
Gadamer,H.Troth and Methods[M].Trans.By J.Weinsheimer & D.G.Marshall.2~nd ed.London:Sheed and Ward,1989.
Gardner,H.The Mind's New Science[M].New York:Basic Books,1985.
Giora,R.Discourse Coherence and Theory of Relevance[J].Journal of Pragmatics.1997,27(1):17-34.
Giora,R.Discourse Coherence is an Independent Notion[J].Journal of Pragmatics.1998,29(1):75-86..
Givón,T.Context as Other Minds:The Pragmatics of Sociality,Cognition and Communication [M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005.
Givón,T.Coherence in Text vs.Coherence in Mind[A].In M.Gemsbacher and T.Givón(eds.).Coherence in Spontaneous Text.Amsterdam:Benjamins,59-116.
Goldfarb,W.Kripke on Wittgenstein on Rules[J].The Journal of Philosophy.1985.Vol.82.No.9:471-488.
Goodman,N.Fact,Fiction,and Forecast[M].2~nd ed.Indianapolis:Bobhs-Merrill,1965.
Goodman,R.B.Wittgenstein and William James[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2004.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation[A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan(eds.). Syntax and Semantics[C]. Vol.3. New York: Academic, 1975: 41-58.
Grice, P. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
Habermas, J. Some Further Clarifications of the Concept of Communicative Rationality [A]. In M. Cooke(ed.). On the Pragmatics of Communication[C]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998:307-342.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman, 1976.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
Hatfield, G. W. Henry Fielding and the Language of Irony[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Heal, J. Common Knolwedge[J]. The Philosophical Quarterly. 1978. Vol. 28. No. 111: 116-131.
Herder, J. G Essay on the Origin of Language[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966.
Hobbs, J. R. Coherence and Coreference[J]. Cognitive Science, 1979,45(3): 67-90..
Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. http://0-galenet.galegroup.com.libecnu.lib.ecnu.edu.cn:80/servlet/ECCO
Huff, D. How to Lie with Statistics[M]. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1954.
Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature[M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
Husserl, E. Cartesian Meditations[M]. Trans. By D. Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Ishiguro, H. Leibniz's Philosophy of Logic and Language[M]. 2nd ed. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
James, W. A Pluralistic Universe[M]. Introduction by H. S. Levinson. New Edition. University of Nebraska Press, 1996.
Jenkins, L. Biolinguistics: Exploring the Biology of Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Jowett, B. The Dialogues of Plato[C]. 4vols. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
Kintsch, W. The Psychology of Discourse Processing[A].In M. A. Gernsbacher(ed.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics[C]. London: Academic, 1994.
Knblauch, C. H. Coherence Betrayed: Samuel Johnson and the "prose of the World"[J]. Boundary 2. Vol. 7. No.2. Revisions of the Anglo-American Tradition: Part I (Winter), 1979,235-260.
Kripke, S. A. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982.
Land, S. K. Lord Monboddo and the Theory of Syntax in the Late Eighteenth Century[J]. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1976.Vol. 37. No.7:423-420.
Land, S. K. The Philosophy of Language in Britain: Major Theories from Hobbs to Thomas Reid[M]. AMS Press, Inc., 1986.
Larson, C. U. Persuasion—Reception and Responsibility[M]. 7~(th) ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.
Leech, G. Semantics[M]. 2~(nd) ed. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1981.
Lehrer, K. Discursive Knowledge[J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 2000. Vol. 60. No. 3: 637-653.
Leibniz, G. New Essays on Human Understanding[M]. Trans. P. Remnant and J. Bennett. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[M]. Edited by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Long, A. A. Stoic Linguistics, Plato's Cratylus, and Augustine's De Dialectia[A] In D. Frede and B. Inwood(eds.). Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age[C]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005:36-55.
Lycan, W. G. Philosophy of Language[M]. London: Routledge, 1998.
Lyons, J. Semantics[M]. Vols. I & II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Magee, B. et al. Men of Ideas— Some Creators of Contemporary Philosophy[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Mann, W. C. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis[A]. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.).Discourse Description. Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fun-Raising Text. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 39-79.
Mason, R. Understanding Understanding[M]. New York: State University of New York Press, 2003
Melchert, N. The Great Conversation[M]. Mayfield Publishing Company, 1999.
Mill, J. S. A System of Logic[M]. 8th ed. London: Longman, 1925.
Miller, G. & Johnson-Laird, P. Language and Perception[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Modrak, D. K. W. Aristotle's Theory of Language and Meaning[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Monboddo, James Burnet, Lord. Of the origin and progress of language. ... Vol. I. Vol. 1. Edinburgh, 1773-92. 6 vols. Based on information from English Short Title Catalogue. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Group.
Muller, F. M. The Science of Language[M]. Vols I & II. London: 1891.
Nozick, R. The Nature of Rationality [M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Ott, W. R. Locke's Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Pietrosemoli, L. E. Cohesion and Coherence in Aphasic Conversational Discourse[D]. Georgetown University. 1998.
Pinker, S. Words and Rules[M]. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
Plato. The Republic of Plato[M]. Trans. By F. M. Cornford. New York & London: Oxford University Press, 1945.
Price, H. H. Our Evidence for the Existence of Other Minds[J]. Philosophy. 1938. Vol. 13: 425-456.
Rawls, J. A Theory of Iustice[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Reinhart, T.Conditions for Coherence[J]. Poetics Today 1980(1): 161-180.
Rhees, R. Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse[M]. D. Z. Phillips (ed.). Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Ryle, G The Concept of Mind[M]. London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1949.
Sanford, A. Coherence: Psycholinguistic Approach[A]. In K. Brown et al (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics[C]. 2~(nd) ed. 14 vols. Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005: 586-591.
Saussure, F. D. Course in General Linguistics[M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
Schiffrin, D. Discourse Markers[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987/2007. Schopenhauer, A. The World as Will and Representation[M]. Trans. E. F. J. Payne. Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1958.
Shea, R. The Book of Success[C]. Nashiville, TE: Rutledge Hill Press, 1993.
Simmons, A. Territorial Games— Understanding and Ending Turf Wars at Work[M]. New York: AMACOM, 1998.
Sinclair, J. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Smith, N. & Wilson, D. Introduction to Relevance Theory[J]. Lingua. 1992, 87(1): 1-10.
Somerville, J. Making out the Signatures[A]. In M. Dalgarno & E. Mathews(eds.). The Philosophy of Thomas Reid[C]. Dordrent: Kluwer, 1989.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Spohn, W. Two Cohernce Principles[J]. Erkenntnis. 1999. Vol. 50:155-175.
Steiner, R. Goethe's World View[M]. New York: F. Ungar Publishing Company, 1963.
Stubbs, M. Discourse Analysis: The Socio-linguistic Analysis of Natural Language[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.
Tannen, D. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse[M]. Norwood: Ablex.
Thagard, P. Coherence in Thought and Action[M]. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2000.
Thibault, P. J.Communicating and Interpreting Relevance through Discourse Negotiation[J]. Journal of Pragmatics. 1999, 31(4): 557-594..
Van Dijk, T. A. Text and Context[M]. London: Longman, 1977.
Vaneechoutte , M. , Skoyles , J . R. The Memetic Origin of Language : Modern Humans as Musical Primates[J]. http ://www. cpm. mmu. ac. uk/jom - emit/ 1998/ vol2/ va2 neechoutte-m&sk oyles-jr. html. 1998.
Verlinsky, A. Epicurus and His Predecessors on the Origin of Language[A]. in D. Frede and B. Inwood. Eds. Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age[C]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Viger, C. Where Do Dennett's Stances Stand? Explaining Our Kind of Mind[A]. In D. Ross, A. Brook and D. Thompson(eds.). Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment[C]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000.
Wells, G. A. The Origin of Language—Aspects of the Discussion from Condillac to Wundt[M]. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, 1987.
Welsch, W. Rationality and Reason Today[A]. In D. R. Gordon and J. Niznik (eds.). Criticism and Defense of Rationality in Contemporary Philosophy[C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1998.17-31.
Whitehead, A. N. Process and Reality[M].Corrected edition. New York: The Free Press, 1978.
Whitney, W. D. The Life and Growth of Language[M]. London: 1875.
Widdowson, H. Teaching Language as Communication[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Williams, T. C. Kant's Philosophy of Language: Chomskyan Linguistics and its Kantian Roots[M]. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1993.
Wilson, D. Relevance and Understanding[A].In G. Brown G et al. (eds.) Language and Understanding[C]. Oxford: OUP, 1994:37-60.
Winterowd,W.R.The Grammar of Coherenc[J].College English.1970(31):828-835.
Wolf,F.& Gibson,E.Coherence in Nartural Language:Data Structures and Application[M].Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,2006.
爱克曼(编辑).歌德的格言和感想集[C].中国社会科学出版社,1982.
白人立、国庆祝.译者前言[A].载于C.K.奥格登、I.A.理查兹.意义之意义[M].白人立、国庆祝译.北京北京师范大学出版社,2000.
柏格森.时间与自由意志[M].吴士栋译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
柏拉图.柏拉图全集[M].第二卷.王晓朝译.北京:人民出版社,2003.
柏莲子.中国讥谣文化:古代寓言全书[M].长春:时代文艺出版社,1999.
遍照金刚.文镜秘府論(?)校(?)考[M].卢盛江校考.北京:中华书局,2006.
布尔迪厄.言语意味着什么——语言交换的经济[M].褚思真、刘晖译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
布莱克摩尔.谜米机器[M].高春申等译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2001.
曹卫东.曹卫东讲哈贝马斯[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
陈骙.文则[A].载于郭绍虞、罗根泽主编.中国古典文学理论批评选辑[C].北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
陈海庆.语篇连贯:言语行为模式[D].东北师范大学.2005.
陈嘉映.从移植词看当代中国哲学[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版)2005c年,第4期:60-65页.
陈嘉映.海德格尔哲学概论[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005a.
陈嘉映.无法还原的象[M].北京:华夏出版社,2005b.
陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
陈嘉映.哲学科学常识[M].北京:东方出版社,2007.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1976.
程晓堂.基于功能语言学的语篇连贯研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
程雨民.语言系统及其运作[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
丛书集成初编.东坡文谈录(及其他二种).文脉.卷一.北京:中华书局,1985.
崔梅、李红梅.语言交流的连贯因素研究[M].昆明:云南民族出版社,2001.
崔永元.精彩实话:实话实说话题精选[M].北京:中国摄影出版社,2003.
笛卡尔.谈谈方法[M].王太庆译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
董黎(编译).英语幽默集萃[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1992.
杜世洪.《作为他人心理的语境:社会性、认知及交流的语用学》述评[J].外语教学与研究.2006a年,第5期:316-318页.
杜世洪.关于知识与意义的关联分析——从波普与维特根斯坦的冲突谈起[J].自然辩证法研究.2006b年,第7期:23-27页.
杜世洪.汉语国俗语的几例英译问题剖析[J].长春大学学报.2006c年,第4期:36-38页.
杜世洪.论话语交际中借音脱跳的关联特点[J].外语与外语教学.2003年,第9期:12-14页.
杜世洪.Perspectives in Coherence Analysis[D].西南师范大学.2000.
杜世洪.从连贯的二元性特征看阐释连贯的三类标准[J].外语与外语教学.2002年,第3期:57-60页.
杜世洪.里斯、维特根斯坦与话语理解的可能性[J].外语学刊.2007年,第2期:20-24页.
杜世洪.美国语言之旅[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.
范亚刚.开拓我国语篇研究的新领域——评胡壮麟的《语篇的衔接与连贯》[J].山东外语教 学.1998年,第4期:45-47.
冯光武.合作原则必须是原则——兼与钱冠连教授商榷[J].四川外语学院学报.2005年,第5期:108-113页.
冯广艺.变异修辞学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
冯晓虎.作为篇章连贯手段的概念隐喻[D].北京外国语大学.1999.
符淮青.词义的分析和描写[M].北京:语文出版社,1996.
傅勇林.文脉、意脉与语篇阐释——Halliday与刘熙载篇章理论之比较研究[J].外语与外语教学.2000年,第1期:19-26页.
哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].张博树译.重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
海德格尔.存在与时间[M].陈嘉映译.修订译本.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006.
海德格尔.在通向语言途中[M].孙周兴译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
韩少功.马桥词典[M].北京:作家出版社,1997.
韩卫红.合作原则需要澄清的几个问题[J].河海大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2003年,第5期:72-74页.
何兆熊.语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1989.
洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].姚小平译.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
侯宝林.侯宝林自选相声集[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1987.
胡怀琛.古文笔法百篇[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,1984.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
黄寿祺、张善文.周易译注[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2004.
黄宪芳.再论古诗英译中的文化内涵——从《天净沙·秋思》英译文本的诗体要素看文化内涵的传递[J].外语教学.2004年,第2期:74-79页.
伽达默尔.哲学诠释学[M].夏镇平、宋建平译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004b.
伽达默尔.真理与方法—哲学诠释学的基本特征[M].洪汉鼎译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004a.
金岳霖.知识论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
李辉.胡风集团冤案始末[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003.
李洪儒.试论语词层级上说话人的形象——语言哲学系列探索之一[J].外语学刊.2005年,第5期:43-48页.
李孟国.詹姆士的纯粹经验探析[J].广西社会科学.2005年,第9期:50-52页.
李佐文.话语标记和话语连贯研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
理查森.智力的形成[M].赵菊峰译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
廖艳君.新闻报道的语言学研究:消息语篇的衔接和连贯[D].湖南师范大学.2004.
刘勰.文心雕龙注释[M].周振甫注.北京:人民文学出版社,1981.
刘国成.“床”字小议[J].语文月刊.1984年,第11期.
刘利民.在语言中盘旋——先秦名家“诡辩”命题的纯语言思辨理性研究[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2007.
刘熙载.艺概[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1978.
刘以鬯.酒徒[M].北京:中国文联出版公司,1985.
卢梭.论语言的起源:兼论旋律与音乐的模仿[M].洪涛译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
陆机.文赋集释[M].张少康集释.北京:人民文学出版社,2002.
罗素.人类的知识——其范围与限度[M].张金言译.北京:商务印书馆,1983.
洛克.人类理解论[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆,1959,1997.
马尔科姆.关于他心的知识[A].载于高新民、储昭华主编.心灵哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
马克思、恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集[M].中文第1版.第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1960.
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年,第2期:58-59页.
潘文国.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1997.
潘文国.字本位与汉语研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2002.
平克.语言本能[M].洪兰译.汕头:汕头大学出版社,2004.
钱冠连.汉语文化语用学[M].第2版.北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
钱冠连.语言:人类最后的家园-人类基本生存状态的哲学与语用学研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
乔松.李白《静夜思》中的“床”字[J].语文月刊.1985年,第3期.
冉永平.指示语选择的语用视点、语用移情与离情[J].外语教学与研究.2007年,第5期:331-337页.
任绍曾.概念隐喻和语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究.2006年,第2期:91-100页.
沈学君.他心问题及其解答[D].高新民指导.华中师范大学.2004.
升地三郎.小,就小了 弯,就弯了[M].金野译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2002.
盛晓明.话语规则与知识基础——语用学维度[M].上海:学林出版社,2000.
斯特劳森.论指称[A].载于马蒂尼奇主编.语言哲学[C].牟博等译.北京:商务印书馆,2004:414-446.
斯托曼.情绪心理学[M].张燕云译.沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987.
孙玉.胡壮麟的《语篇的衔接与连贯》评介[J].外国语.1995年,第4期:78-79页.
田平.模块性、经典计算和意向实在论[J].自然辩证法研究.2006年,第7期:14-17页.
汪少林.析字联话[M].南昌:江西高校出版社,1997.
王力.同源字典[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇连贯研究[J].外语研究.2006年,第6期:6-12页.
王东风.文学翻译的多维连贯性研究[D].北京大学.1999.
王晓丰.日常语言哲学中的他心问题[D].陈嘉映指导.华东师范大学.2005.
维特根斯坦.哲学研究[M].陈嘉映译.上海:上海人民出版杜,2001.
维特根斯坦.哲学语法[M].程志民译.维特根斯坦全集.涂纪亮主编.第4卷.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2003.
维特根斯坦.纸条集[M].吴晓红译.维特根斯坦全集.涂纪亮主编.第11卷.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2003.
魏在江.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[D].华东师范大学.2004.
西田几多郎.善的研究[M].何倩译.北京:商务印书馆,1989.
席天扬.普遍冲突和自由主义:我们应该站在哪里[J].东岳论丛.2004年,第4期:67-80页.
谢毅.语篇的连贯性[D].复旦大学.1990.
休谟.人性论[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆,1980,1983.
胥洪泉.李白《静夜思》研究综述[J].重庆社会科学.2005年,第7期:47-50页.
徐健.衔接、语篇组织和连贯[D].复旦大学.2004.
徐国珍.仿拟研究[M].南昌:江西人民出版社,2003.
许嘉璐.语言学译著序[A].载于C.K.奥格登、I.A.理查兹.意义之意义[M].白人立、国庆 祝译.北京北京师范大学出版社,2000.
亚里士多德.亚里士多德全集[M].苗力田主编.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993.
亚里士多德.范畴篇、解释篇[M].方书春译.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
亚里士多德.尼各马可伦理学[M].廖申白译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
扬雄.扬子法言[M].黄寿成校点.沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,1998.
杨才英.新闻访谈中的人际连贯研究[D].山东大学.2006.
杨树达.词诠[M].第3版.北京:中华书局,2004.
姚小平.黑尔德的名著《论语言的起源》[J].外语与外语教学.1997年,第3期:53-55页.
叶斯柏森.语法哲学[M].何勇等译.北京:语文出版社,1988.
叶秀山.哲学要义[M].北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司,2006.
余东.衔接、连贯与翻译之关系研究[D].南开大学.2002.
郁振华.哈贝马斯的后形而上学的哲学观[J].学术月刊,1998年,第5期:31-38页.
詹姆士.实用主义[M].陈羽纶、孙瑞禾译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
詹姆斯.彻底的经验主义[M].庞景仁译.上海:上海人民出版社,1987.
张春隆.论合作原则之不足[J].外语学刊.1996年,第4期:86-89页.
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,2003.
张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].外国语.1999年,第6期:24-31页.
张建理.连贯研究概览[J].外语教学与研究.1998年,第4期:40-46页.
张建理.论语篇连贯机制[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版).2001年,第6期:126-131页.
张能为.理解的实践——伽达默尔实践哲学研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
张天勇.文本理解何以可能——哲学解释学对理解条件的探索[J].青海社会科学.2004年,第1期:72-75页.
张学广.维特根斯坦与理解问题[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,2003.
周振甫.文章例话·脉络[M].北京:中国青年出版社,1983.
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,2001.
朱永生.韩礼德的语篇连贯标准——外界的误解与自身的不足[J].外语教学与研究.1997年,第1期:20-24页.
庄涛等.写作大辞典[M].上海:汉语大词典出版社,1992.
宗白华.艺境[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1987.
Adler, M. J. The Great Ideas[M]. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1992.
Aitchison, J. The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution 言语的萌发:语言起源与进化[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
Allen, J. The Stoics on the Origin of Language and the Foundations of Etymology[A]. In D. Frede and B. Inwood(eds.). Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age[C]. Cambridge.UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005: 36-55.
Aristotle. Metaphysics[M]. Trans. By R. Hope. Columbia University Press, 1952.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benedict, R. Patterns of Culture[M]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.
Benjamin, A. C. Types of Empiricism[J]. The Philosophical Review. 1942. Vol. 51. No. 5: 497-502.
Berkeley, G Principles of Human Knowledge[M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988.
Bichakjian, B. H. Looking for Neural Answers to Linguistic Questions[A]. In M. I. Stamenov & V. Gallese (eds.). Mirrior Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language[C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2002: 323-331.
Bickerton, D. Language and Species[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Blakemore, D. Understanding Utterances[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Bonjour, L. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Brandom, R. B. Action, Norms, and Practical Reseasoning[J]. Nous. 1998. Vol. 32. Supplement. Philosophical Perspectives. 12. Language Mind and Ontology: 127-139.
Brandom, R. B. Facts, Norms, and Normative Facts: Reply to Habermas "From Kant to Hegel: On Robert Brandom's Pragmatic Philosophy of Language"[J]. European Journal of Philosophy. 2000. Vol. 8: 356-374.
Brandom, R. B. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Brown, G & Yule, G Discourse Analysis[M]. Oxford; Blackwell, 1983.
Bublitz, W. Introduction: Views of Coherence[A]. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk and E. Ventola(eds). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
Campbell, K. Coherence, Continuity and cohesion[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, 1995.
Chomsky, N. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory[M]. Hague: Mouton, 1966.
Chomsky, N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use[M]. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc./Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 1985/2002.
Chomsky, N. Language and Cognition[A]. In D. M. Johnson and C. E. Erneling(eds). The Future of the Cognitive Revolution[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997: 15-31.
Chomsky, N. Language and Nature[J]. Mind. 1995. Vol. 104. No. 413: 1-61.
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures[M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
Cooke,M.Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics[M].The MIT Press,1994.
Cornish,E Coherence-The Lifeblood of Anaphora[A].In W.de Mulder & L.Tasmowski(eds.).Coherence and Anaphora[C].Amsterdam:Benjamins.1996,37-54.
D'Amico,R.Contemporary Continental Philosophy[M].Boulder,CL:Westview Press,1999.
Damasio,A.R.Descartes'Error:Emotion,Reason and the Human Brain[M].New York:Hayre Collins,1995.
Damasio,A.R.The Feelings of What Happens:Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness[M].New York:Harcourt Brace,1999.
Danes,F.Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of Text[A].Danes F.Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective[C].Prague:Academic,1974.
Davidson,D.Problems of Rationality[M].Oxford:Oxfirod University Press,2004.
Davidson,D.Thought and Talk[A].In D.Davidson.Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation[M].Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs.2001:155-171.
Davis,W.Implicature[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
De Beaugrande,R.& Dressier,W.U.An Introduction to Text Linguistics[M].London:Longman,1981.
Deacon,T.W.The Symbolic Species:The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain[M].New York:W.W.Norton & Company,Inc.,1997.
Dennett,D.C.The Intentional Stance[M].Cambridge,MA:The MIT Press,1987.
Dilworth,D.The Initial Formations of"Pure Experience" in Nishida Kiaro and William James[J].Monumenta Nipponica.Vol.24.No.1/2:93-111.
Dummett,M.The Interpretation of Frege's Philosophy[M].London:Duckworth,1981.
Durant,W.The Syory of Philosophy[M].Kingsport,TE:Kingsport Press,1950.
Enkvist,N.E.Coherence,Pseudo-coherence,and Non-coherence[A].In J.O.(o|¨)stman(ed.).Cohesion and Semantics[C].Abo,Finland:Abo Akademi Foundation,1978.
Frege,G.On Sense and Reference[A].In M.Baghramian(ed.)Modem Philosophy of Language.Washington,D.C.:Counterpoint,1999:3-25.
Fries,P.On the status of Theme in English[A].In J.Petofi & E.Sozer(eds.).Micro-and Macro-Connexity of Discourse[C].Hamburg:Busde,1983.
Gadamer,H.Troth and Methods[M].Trans.By J.Weinsheimer & D.G.Marshall.2~nd ed.London:Sheed and Ward,1989.
Gardner,H.The Mind's New Science[M].New York:Basic Books,1985.
Giora,R.Discourse Coherence and Theory of Relevance[J].Journal of Pragmatics.1997,27(1):17-34.
Giora,R.Discourse Coherence is an Independent Notion[J].Journal of Pragmatics.1998,29(1):75-86..
Givón,T.Context as Other Minds:The Pragmatics of Sociality,Cognition and Communication [M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005.
Givón,T.Coherence in Text vs.Coherence in Mind[A].In M.Gemsbacher and T.Givón(eds.).Coherence in Spontaneous Text.Amsterdam:Benjamins,59-116.
Goldfarb,W.Kripke on Wittgenstein on Rules[J].The Journal of Philosophy.1985.Vol.82.No.9:471-488.
Goodman,N.Fact,Fiction,and Forecast[M].2~nd ed.Indianapolis:Bobhs-Merrill,1965.
Goodman,R.B.Wittgenstein and William James[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2004.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation[A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan(eds.). Syntax and Semantics[C]. Vol.3. New York: Academic, 1975: 41-58.
Grice, P. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
Habermas, J. Some Further Clarifications of the Concept of Communicative Rationality [A]. In M. Cooke(ed.). On the Pragmatics of Communication[C]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998:307-342.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman, 1976.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
Hatfield, G. W. Henry Fielding and the Language of Irony[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Heal, J. Common Knolwedge[J]. The Philosophical Quarterly. 1978. Vol. 28. No. 111: 116-131.
Herder, J. G Essay on the Origin of Language[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966.
Hobbs, J. R. Coherence and Coreference[J]. Cognitive Science, 1979,45(3): 67-90..
Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. http://0-galenet.galegroup.com.libecnu.lib.ecnu.edu.cn:80/servlet/ECCO
Huff, D. How to Lie with Statistics[M]. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1954.
Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature[M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
Husserl, E. Cartesian Meditations[M]. Trans. By D. Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Ishiguro, H. Leibniz's Philosophy of Logic and Language[M]. 2nd ed. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
James, W. A Pluralistic Universe[M]. Introduction by H. S. Levinson. New Edition. University of Nebraska Press, 1996.
Jenkins, L. Biolinguistics: Exploring the Biology of Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Jowett, B. The Dialogues of Plato[C]. 4vols. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
Kintsch, W. The Psychology of Discourse Processing[A].In M. A. Gernsbacher(ed.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics[C]. London: Academic, 1994.
Knblauch, C. H. Coherence Betrayed: Samuel Johnson and the "prose of the World"[J]. Boundary 2. Vol. 7. No.2. Revisions of the Anglo-American Tradition: Part I (Winter), 1979,235-260.
Kripke, S. A. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982.
Land, S. K. Lord Monboddo and the Theory of Syntax in the Late Eighteenth Century[J]. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1976.Vol. 37. No.7:423-420.
Land, S. K. The Philosophy of Language in Britain: Major Theories from Hobbs to Thomas Reid[M]. AMS Press, Inc., 1986.
Larson, C. U. Persuasion—Reception and Responsibility[M]. 7~(th) ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.
Leech, G. Semantics[M]. 2~(nd) ed. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1981.
Lehrer, K. Discursive Knowledge[J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 2000. Vol. 60. No. 3: 637-653.
Leibniz, G. New Essays on Human Understanding[M]. Trans. P. Remnant and J. Bennett. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[M]. Edited by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Long, A. A. Stoic Linguistics, Plato's Cratylus, and Augustine's De Dialectia[A] In D. Frede and B. Inwood(eds.). Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age[C]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005:36-55.
Lycan, W. G. Philosophy of Language[M]. London: Routledge, 1998.
Lyons, J. Semantics[M]. Vols. I & II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Magee, B. et al. Men of Ideas— Some Creators of Contemporary Philosophy[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Mann, W. C. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis[A]. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.).Discourse Description. Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fun-Raising Text. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 39-79.
Mason, R. Understanding Understanding[M]. New York: State University of New York Press, 2003
Melchert, N. The Great Conversation[M]. Mayfield Publishing Company, 1999.
Mill, J. S. A System of Logic[M]. 8th ed. London: Longman, 1925.
Miller, G. & Johnson-Laird, P. Language and Perception[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Modrak, D. K. W. Aristotle's Theory of Language and Meaning[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Monboddo, James Burnet, Lord. Of the origin and progress of language. ... Vol. I. Vol. 1. Edinburgh, 1773-92. 6 vols. Based on information from English Short Title Catalogue. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Group.
Muller, F. M. The Science of Language[M]. Vols I & II. London: 1891.
Nozick, R. The Nature of Rationality [M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Ott, W. R. Locke's Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Pietrosemoli, L. E. Cohesion and Coherence in Aphasic Conversational Discourse[D]. Georgetown University. 1998.
Pinker, S. Words and Rules[M]. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
Plato. The Republic of Plato[M]. Trans. By F. M. Cornford. New York & London: Oxford University Press, 1945.
Price, H. H. Our Evidence for the Existence of Other Minds[J]. Philosophy. 1938. Vol. 13: 425-456.
Rawls, J. A Theory of Iustice[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Reinhart, T.Conditions for Coherence[J]. Poetics Today 1980(1): 161-180.
Rhees, R. Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse[M]. D. Z. Phillips (ed.). Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Ryle, G The Concept of Mind[M]. London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1949.
Sanford, A. Coherence: Psycholinguistic Approach[A]. In K. Brown et al (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics[C]. 2~(nd) ed. 14 vols. Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005: 586-591.
Saussure, F. D. Course in General Linguistics[M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
Schiffrin, D. Discourse Markers[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987/2007. Schopenhauer, A. The World as Will and Representation[M]. Trans. E. F. J. Payne. Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1958.
Shea, R. The Book of Success[C]. Nashiville, TE: Rutledge Hill Press, 1993.
Simmons, A. Territorial Games— Understanding and Ending Turf Wars at Work[M]. New York: AMACOM, 1998.
Sinclair, J. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Smith, N. & Wilson, D. Introduction to Relevance Theory[J]. Lingua. 1992, 87(1): 1-10.
Somerville, J. Making out the Signatures[A]. In M. Dalgarno & E. Mathews(eds.). The Philosophy of Thomas Reid[C]. Dordrent: Kluwer, 1989.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Spohn, W. Two Cohernce Principles[J]. Erkenntnis. 1999. Vol. 50:155-175.
Steiner, R. Goethe's World View[M]. New York: F. Ungar Publishing Company, 1963.
Stubbs, M. Discourse Analysis: The Socio-linguistic Analysis of Natural Language[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.
Tannen, D. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse[M]. Norwood: Ablex.
Thagard, P. Coherence in Thought and Action[M]. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2000.
Thibault, P. J.Communicating and Interpreting Relevance through Discourse Negotiation[J]. Journal of Pragmatics. 1999, 31(4): 557-594..
Van Dijk, T. A. Text and Context[M]. London: Longman, 1977.
Vaneechoutte , M. , Skoyles , J . R. The Memetic Origin of Language : Modern Humans as Musical Primates[J]. http ://www. cpm. mmu. ac. uk/jom - emit/ 1998/ vol2/ va2 neechoutte-m&sk oyles-jr. html. 1998.
Verlinsky, A. Epicurus and His Predecessors on the Origin of Language[A]. in D. Frede and B. Inwood. Eds. Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age[C]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Viger, C. Where Do Dennett's Stances Stand? Explaining Our Kind of Mind[A]. In D. Ross, A. Brook and D. Thompson(eds.). Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment[C]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000.
Wells, G. A. The Origin of Language—Aspects of the Discussion from Condillac to Wundt[M]. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, 1987.
Welsch, W. Rationality and Reason Today[A]. In D. R. Gordon and J. Niznik (eds.). Criticism and Defense of Rationality in Contemporary Philosophy[C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1998.17-31.
Whitehead, A. N. Process and Reality[M].Corrected edition. New York: The Free Press, 1978.
Whitney, W. D. The Life and Growth of Language[M]. London: 1875.
Widdowson, H. Teaching Language as Communication[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Williams, T. C. Kant's Philosophy of Language: Chomskyan Linguistics and its Kantian Roots[M]. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1993.
Wilson, D. Relevance and Understanding[A].In G. Brown G et al. (eds.) Language and Understanding[C]. Oxford: OUP, 1994:37-60.
Winterowd,W.R.The Grammar of Coherenc[J].College English.1970(31):828-835.
Wolf,F.& Gibson,E.Coherence in Nartural Language:Data Structures and Application[M].Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,2006.
爱克曼(编辑).歌德的格言和感想集[C].中国社会科学出版社,1982.
白人立、国庆祝.译者前言[A].载于C.K.奥格登、I.A.理查兹.意义之意义[M].白人立、国庆祝译.北京北京师范大学出版社,2000.
柏格森.时间与自由意志[M].吴士栋译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
柏拉图.柏拉图全集[M].第二卷.王晓朝译.北京:人民出版社,2003.
柏莲子.中国讥谣文化:古代寓言全书[M].长春:时代文艺出版社,1999.
遍照金刚.文镜秘府論(?)校(?)考[M].卢盛江校考.北京:中华书局,2006.
布尔迪厄.言语意味着什么——语言交换的经济[M].褚思真、刘晖译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
布莱克摩尔.谜米机器[M].高春申等译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2001.
曹卫东.曹卫东讲哈贝马斯[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
陈骙.文则[A].载于郭绍虞、罗根泽主编.中国古典文学理论批评选辑[C].北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
陈海庆.语篇连贯:言语行为模式[D].东北师范大学.2005.
陈嘉映.从移植词看当代中国哲学[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版)2005c年,第4期:60-65页.
陈嘉映.海德格尔哲学概论[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005a.
陈嘉映.无法还原的象[M].北京:华夏出版社,2005b.
陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
陈嘉映.哲学科学常识[M].北京:东方出版社,2007.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1976.
程晓堂.基于功能语言学的语篇连贯研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
程雨民.语言系统及其运作[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
丛书集成初编.东坡文谈录(及其他二种).文脉.卷一.北京:中华书局,1985.
崔梅、李红梅.语言交流的连贯因素研究[M].昆明:云南民族出版社,2001.
崔永元.精彩实话:实话实说话题精选[M].北京:中国摄影出版社,2003.
笛卡尔.谈谈方法[M].王太庆译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
董黎(编译).英语幽默集萃[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1992.
杜世洪.《作为他人心理的语境:社会性、认知及交流的语用学》述评[J].外语教学与研究.2006a年,第5期:316-318页.
杜世洪.关于知识与意义的关联分析——从波普与维特根斯坦的冲突谈起[J].自然辩证法研究.2006b年,第7期:23-27页.
杜世洪.汉语国俗语的几例英译问题剖析[J].长春大学学报.2006c年,第4期:36-38页.
杜世洪.论话语交际中借音脱跳的关联特点[J].外语与外语教学.2003年,第9期:12-14页.
杜世洪.Perspectives in Coherence Analysis[D].西南师范大学.2000.
杜世洪.从连贯的二元性特征看阐释连贯的三类标准[J].外语与外语教学.2002年,第3期:57-60页.
杜世洪.里斯、维特根斯坦与话语理解的可能性[J].外语学刊.2007年,第2期:20-24页.
杜世洪.美国语言之旅[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.
范亚刚.开拓我国语篇研究的新领域——评胡壮麟的《语篇的衔接与连贯》[J].山东外语教 学.1998年,第4期:45-47.
冯光武.合作原则必须是原则——兼与钱冠连教授商榷[J].四川外语学院学报.2005年,第5期:108-113页.
冯广艺.变异修辞学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
冯晓虎.作为篇章连贯手段的概念隐喻[D].北京外国语大学.1999.
符淮青.词义的分析和描写[M].北京:语文出版社,1996.
傅勇林.文脉、意脉与语篇阐释——Halliday与刘熙载篇章理论之比较研究[J].外语与外语教学.2000年,第1期:19-26页.
哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].张博树译.重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
海德格尔.存在与时间[M].陈嘉映译.修订译本.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006.
海德格尔.在通向语言途中[M].孙周兴译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
韩少功.马桥词典[M].北京:作家出版社,1997.
韩卫红.合作原则需要澄清的几个问题[J].河海大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2003年,第5期:72-74页.
何兆熊.语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1989.
洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].姚小平译.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
侯宝林.侯宝林自选相声集[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1987.
胡怀琛.古文笔法百篇[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,1984.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
黄寿祺、张善文.周易译注[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2004.
黄宪芳.再论古诗英译中的文化内涵——从《天净沙·秋思》英译文本的诗体要素看文化内涵的传递[J].外语教学.2004年,第2期:74-79页.
伽达默尔.哲学诠释学[M].夏镇平、宋建平译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004b.
伽达默尔.真理与方法—哲学诠释学的基本特征[M].洪汉鼎译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004a.
金岳霖.知识论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
李辉.胡风集团冤案始末[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,2003.
李洪儒.试论语词层级上说话人的形象——语言哲学系列探索之一[J].外语学刊.2005年,第5期:43-48页.
李孟国.詹姆士的纯粹经验探析[J].广西社会科学.2005年,第9期:50-52页.
李佐文.话语标记和话语连贯研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
理查森.智力的形成[M].赵菊峰译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
廖艳君.新闻报道的语言学研究:消息语篇的衔接和连贯[D].湖南师范大学.2004.
刘勰.文心雕龙注释[M].周振甫注.北京:人民文学出版社,1981.
刘国成.“床”字小议[J].语文月刊.1984年,第11期.
刘利民.在语言中盘旋——先秦名家“诡辩”命题的纯语言思辨理性研究[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2007.
刘熙载.艺概[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1978.
刘以鬯.酒徒[M].北京:中国文联出版公司,1985.
卢梭.论语言的起源:兼论旋律与音乐的模仿[M].洪涛译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
陆机.文赋集释[M].张少康集释.北京:人民文学出版社,2002.
罗素.人类的知识——其范围与限度[M].张金言译.北京:商务印书馆,1983.
洛克.人类理解论[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆,1959,1997.
马尔科姆.关于他心的知识[A].载于高新民、储昭华主编.心灵哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
马克思、恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集[M].中文第1版.第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1960.
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年,第2期:58-59页.
潘文国.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1997.
潘文国.字本位与汉语研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2002.
平克.语言本能[M].洪兰译.汕头:汕头大学出版社,2004.
钱冠连.汉语文化语用学[M].第2版.北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
钱冠连.语言:人类最后的家园-人类基本生存状态的哲学与语用学研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
乔松.李白《静夜思》中的“床”字[J].语文月刊.1985年,第3期.
冉永平.指示语选择的语用视点、语用移情与离情[J].外语教学与研究.2007年,第5期:331-337页.
任绍曾.概念隐喻和语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究.2006年,第2期:91-100页.
沈学君.他心问题及其解答[D].高新民指导.华中师范大学.2004.
升地三郎.小,就小了 弯,就弯了[M].金野译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2002.
盛晓明.话语规则与知识基础——语用学维度[M].上海:学林出版社,2000.
斯特劳森.论指称[A].载于马蒂尼奇主编.语言哲学[C].牟博等译.北京:商务印书馆,2004:414-446.
斯托曼.情绪心理学[M].张燕云译.沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987.
孙玉.胡壮麟的《语篇的衔接与连贯》评介[J].外国语.1995年,第4期:78-79页.
田平.模块性、经典计算和意向实在论[J].自然辩证法研究.2006年,第7期:14-17页.
汪少林.析字联话[M].南昌:江西高校出版社,1997.
王力.同源字典[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇连贯研究[J].外语研究.2006年,第6期:6-12页.
王东风.文学翻译的多维连贯性研究[D].北京大学.1999.
王晓丰.日常语言哲学中的他心问题[D].陈嘉映指导.华东师范大学.2005.
维特根斯坦.哲学研究[M].陈嘉映译.上海:上海人民出版杜,2001.
维特根斯坦.哲学语法[M].程志民译.维特根斯坦全集.涂纪亮主编.第4卷.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2003.
维特根斯坦.纸条集[M].吴晓红译.维特根斯坦全集.涂纪亮主编.第11卷.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2003.
魏在江.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[D].华东师范大学.2004.
西田几多郎.善的研究[M].何倩译.北京:商务印书馆,1989.
席天扬.普遍冲突和自由主义:我们应该站在哪里[J].东岳论丛.2004年,第4期:67-80页.
谢毅.语篇的连贯性[D].复旦大学.1990.
休谟.人性论[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆,1980,1983.
胥洪泉.李白《静夜思》研究综述[J].重庆社会科学.2005年,第7期:47-50页.
徐健.衔接、语篇组织和连贯[D].复旦大学.2004.
徐国珍.仿拟研究[M].南昌:江西人民出版社,2003.
许嘉璐.语言学译著序[A].载于C.K.奥格登、I.A.理查兹.意义之意义[M].白人立、国庆 祝译.北京北京师范大学出版社,2000.
亚里士多德.亚里士多德全集[M].苗力田主编.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993.
亚里士多德.范畴篇、解释篇[M].方书春译.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
亚里士多德.尼各马可伦理学[M].廖申白译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
扬雄.扬子法言[M].黄寿成校点.沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,1998.
杨才英.新闻访谈中的人际连贯研究[D].山东大学.2006.
杨树达.词诠[M].第3版.北京:中华书局,2004.
姚小平.黑尔德的名著《论语言的起源》[J].外语与外语教学.1997年,第3期:53-55页.
叶斯柏森.语法哲学[M].何勇等译.北京:语文出版社,1988.
叶秀山.哲学要义[M].北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司,2006.
余东.衔接、连贯与翻译之关系研究[D].南开大学.2002.
郁振华.哈贝马斯的后形而上学的哲学观[J].学术月刊,1998年,第5期:31-38页.
詹姆士.实用主义[M].陈羽纶、孙瑞禾译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
詹姆斯.彻底的经验主义[M].庞景仁译.上海:上海人民出版社,1987.
张春隆.论合作原则之不足[J].外语学刊.1996年,第4期:86-89页.
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,2003.
张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].外国语.1999年,第6期:24-31页.
张建理.连贯研究概览[J].外语教学与研究.1998年,第4期:40-46页.
张建理.论语篇连贯机制[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版).2001年,第6期:126-131页.
张能为.理解的实践——伽达默尔实践哲学研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
张天勇.文本理解何以可能——哲学解释学对理解条件的探索[J].青海社会科学.2004年,第1期:72-75页.
张学广.维特根斯坦与理解问题[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,2003.
周振甫.文章例话·脉络[M].北京:中国青年出版社,1983.
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,2001.
朱永生.韩礼德的语篇连贯标准——外界的误解与自身的不足[J].外语教学与研究.1997年,第1期:20-24页.
庄涛等.写作大辞典[M].上海:汉语大词典出版社,1992.
宗白华.艺境[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1987.