英汉叙述语篇中句内下指现象的认知功能阐释
|
摘要
下指是回指的标记形式,系指:指代形式(pro-form)出现在语篇上文。本文以叙述语篇中的句内下指现象为研究对象。
以往研究通常将“P+NP”看作下指的唯一构式,对“P+NP”构式的研究单看诸如下例中下划线所示名代之间的指称关系,忽略P、NP所在小句所表达的事件以及相互之间的关联。
(?)_1 Mistaking him2 for a burglar, Barbara1 shoots Carol’s boyfriend2. (van Hoek, 1997:121)
本文从认知角度对这一句式做出新的功能阐释,即:关注小句之间的事件关联,将前置-ing看作零形式(?)。这样,以往“P+NP”构式中-ing开头的句式就成为本文中的“(?) +P”或“(?)+N”构式。由此,我们以可及性理论为依据,将下指句式按照零形式((?))、代词(P)与名词(NP)之间的可及性差异拓宽为“P+NP”、“(?)+P”与“(?)+N”三式;后两式合一为“(?)+P/NP”式,其中的“(?)”代表不定式(-ing、to)及其它省略形式(reduced form)。具体理由为:1)在van Hoek (1997)的“P+NP”构式中,P小句多为明示状语/从句,有从属关联词引导,如介词、连词等;2)van Hoek对“P+NP”构式的解释名为认知、语义,实为句法、形式;对上述-ing开头的下指句只作了静态分析,没有触及根本;3)以“(?)+P/N”替代“P+NP”,不仅关注了小句之间的名代关系,更突出了其中的事件关联;4)-ing开头的下指句,因为缺少明示语义关联,容易造成误解;这一句式恰好构成英汉比较的共同基础(TC)。
以上-ing小句与汉语下指句中开头小句的相似之处在于:两者均表示一个先行事件,从而自然成为其后事件/小句的背景。对前、后景的这一认识与传统观点相左:Li(2004)即认为,完成标记“了”对应后景,未完成标记“着”对应前景;英语中-ing等简化形式表示前景,而完整小句表示后景。
本文以可及性、象似性与标记理论为依据,对英汉下指句式的分析同时关注话题与事件的延续性,并按时间的单向性确定前后景关系。这一阐释符合叙事语篇中语言与现实(句子与事件)的直接对应关系;采用名动两分(话题+事件)的认知分析方法,有助于对前、后景的功能判断。
研究表明,不能将英语中-ing前置小句简单称作状语,同样也无法将未完成“着”与前景简单对应。同时发现,英汉下指句中的话题、时体和连接词互为关联,共同支撑小句之间的衔接关系。相对而言,汉语中的体标记更多地以词汇复合(语义)手段来实现,而英语体标记的语法化(形式化)程度更高。
以上结论基于自建平行语料库,与传统文献常以零散句子为据形成鲜明对照。
This study focuses on sentential cataphora in narrative discourse. Cataphora differs from the unmarked form of anaphora in that the pro-form appears before (earlier than/ to the left of) the co-referring expression. We extend this definition on the basis of the hierarchic relation between (?), P, and NP on the accessibility marking scale to cover the following three patterns:“(?)+P”,“(?)+NP”, and“P+NP”. This treatment of cataphora differs from previous studies in that in the past only the“P+NP”pattern was addressed.
The“(?)+P”and“(?)+NP”patterns (conflated as“(?)+P/NP”) are identified on the basis of a functional/cognitive analysis of the -ing headed“P+NP”pattern in English. Specifically, argument for shift of attention from“P+NP”to“(?)+P/NP”is based on the following observations and assumptions: a)“P+NP”, with an explicit subordinator in the P clause, has been sufficiently accounted for in many syntactic/structural analyses; b) van Hoek (1997)’s so-called‘cognitive/semantic’interpretation is essentially a syntactic one, and her analysis of the (?)-headed (‘(?) V-ing’) clause in cataphora is largely static because linear order is employed to analyze“connectivity between nominals”only; c) in establishing“(?)+NP”as an alternative and replacement for the“P+NP”pattern, we combine‘action continuity’(temporal sequence) and‘topic continuity’(referential sequence) in the reinterpretation of the V-ing headed“P+NP”pattern; d) it helps to establish a common ground, or TC, for the contrastive analysis of the two languages concerned.
V-ing headed clause in English shares with (?)-headed clause in Chinese in that both are used for expressing a perfective iconic event, and as such both can be construed as providing the background for the event(s)/clause(s) that will follow. This assumption differs from the traditional understanding of grounding as represented in Li (2004), whose functional interpretation for the (?)-headed clause is based on a somewhat simplistic form-function mapping in the two languages, as is illustrated below.
Chinese: perfectiv(e了)= foreground vs imperfective/durativ(e着)= background
English: reduced forms (V-ing)= background vs full forms(-ed)= foreground
By taking a cognitive-functional perspective and employing the theoretical notions of accessibility, iconicity, and markedness in this study, we analyze all the sentences containing cataphora in our Chinese-English bilingual parallel corpus in terms of both formal‘NP+VP’and cognitive-functional‘topic + comment/action’configurations, and interpret the cataphoric sentences basically in terms of the semantics of time as reflected in both topic continuity (referential sequence) and action continuity (temporal sequence). This cognitive-functional approach to the interpretation of sentential anaphora in narrative discourse leads us to arrive at a more feasible account of grounding, since the initial clause in a sentence containing cataphora is oriented by the unidirectionality of time, thus revealing a direct mapping between language and the conceptual world.
Our data analyses show that the ADV/subordination account of the sentence-initial V-ing clause is untenable, and the form-function mapping between imperfectivity/着and backgrounding is far from perfect. The study also examines the dynamic interaction between topic, aspect, and the use of conjunction within a cataphoric sentence in Chinese and English narrative discourse.
Up-playing inter-lingual similarity, the overall tendency shared is summarized as“to be iconic is to be economical”. Difference between the languages lies in the form-function mapping: it is more direct in Chinese and more indirect in English, correlated with and reflected in the more rigid order in Chinese and more flexible syntax (morphology) in English.
The conclusions are based on a self-collected bilingual parallel corpus: for SL Chinese, we employ Camel and Midnight, part of the former was employed by Li (2004); SL English data consists solely of narrative genre, as such is more consistent than van Hoek (1997).
以往研究通常将“P+NP”看作下指的唯一构式,对“P+NP”构式的研究单看诸如下例中下划线所示名代之间的指称关系,忽略P、NP所在小句所表达的事件以及相互之间的关联。
(?)_1 Mistaking him2 for a burglar, Barbara1 shoots Carol’s boyfriend2. (van Hoek, 1997:121)
本文从认知角度对这一句式做出新的功能阐释,即:关注小句之间的事件关联,将前置-ing看作零形式(?)。这样,以往“P+NP”构式中-ing开头的句式就成为本文中的“(?) +P”或“(?)+N”构式。由此,我们以可及性理论为依据,将下指句式按照零形式((?))、代词(P)与名词(NP)之间的可及性差异拓宽为“P+NP”、“(?)+P”与“(?)+N”三式;后两式合一为“(?)+P/NP”式,其中的“(?)”代表不定式(-ing、to)及其它省略形式(reduced form)。具体理由为:1)在van Hoek (1997)的“P+NP”构式中,P小句多为明示状语/从句,有从属关联词引导,如介词、连词等;2)van Hoek对“P+NP”构式的解释名为认知、语义,实为句法、形式;对上述-ing开头的下指句只作了静态分析,没有触及根本;3)以“(?)+P/N”替代“P+NP”,不仅关注了小句之间的名代关系,更突出了其中的事件关联;4)-ing开头的下指句,因为缺少明示语义关联,容易造成误解;这一句式恰好构成英汉比较的共同基础(TC)。
以上-ing小句与汉语下指句中开头小句的相似之处在于:两者均表示一个先行事件,从而自然成为其后事件/小句的背景。对前、后景的这一认识与传统观点相左:Li(2004)即认为,完成标记“了”对应后景,未完成标记“着”对应前景;英语中-ing等简化形式表示前景,而完整小句表示后景。
本文以可及性、象似性与标记理论为依据,对英汉下指句式的分析同时关注话题与事件的延续性,并按时间的单向性确定前后景关系。这一阐释符合叙事语篇中语言与现实(句子与事件)的直接对应关系;采用名动两分(话题+事件)的认知分析方法,有助于对前、后景的功能判断。
研究表明,不能将英语中-ing前置小句简单称作状语,同样也无法将未完成“着”与前景简单对应。同时发现,英汉下指句中的话题、时体和连接词互为关联,共同支撑小句之间的衔接关系。相对而言,汉语中的体标记更多地以词汇复合(语义)手段来实现,而英语体标记的语法化(形式化)程度更高。
以上结论基于自建平行语料库,与传统文献常以零散句子为据形成鲜明对照。
This study focuses on sentential cataphora in narrative discourse. Cataphora differs from the unmarked form of anaphora in that the pro-form appears before (earlier than/ to the left of) the co-referring expression. We extend this definition on the basis of the hierarchic relation between (?), P, and NP on the accessibility marking scale to cover the following three patterns:“(?)+P”,“(?)+NP”, and“P+NP”. This treatment of cataphora differs from previous studies in that in the past only the“P+NP”pattern was addressed.
The“(?)+P”and“(?)+NP”patterns (conflated as“(?)+P/NP”) are identified on the basis of a functional/cognitive analysis of the -ing headed“P+NP”pattern in English. Specifically, argument for shift of attention from“P+NP”to“(?)+P/NP”is based on the following observations and assumptions: a)“P+NP”, with an explicit subordinator in the P clause, has been sufficiently accounted for in many syntactic/structural analyses; b) van Hoek (1997)’s so-called‘cognitive/semantic’interpretation is essentially a syntactic one, and her analysis of the (?)-headed (‘(?) V-ing’) clause in cataphora is largely static because linear order is employed to analyze“connectivity between nominals”only; c) in establishing“(?)+NP”as an alternative and replacement for the“P+NP”pattern, we combine‘action continuity’(temporal sequence) and‘topic continuity’(referential sequence) in the reinterpretation of the V-ing headed“P+NP”pattern; d) it helps to establish a common ground, or TC, for the contrastive analysis of the two languages concerned.
V-ing headed clause in English shares with (?)-headed clause in Chinese in that both are used for expressing a perfective iconic event, and as such both can be construed as providing the background for the event(s)/clause(s) that will follow. This assumption differs from the traditional understanding of grounding as represented in Li (2004), whose functional interpretation for the (?)-headed clause is based on a somewhat simplistic form-function mapping in the two languages, as is illustrated below.
Chinese: perfectiv(e了)= foreground vs imperfective/durativ(e着)= background
English: reduced forms (V-ing)= background vs full forms(-ed)= foreground
By taking a cognitive-functional perspective and employing the theoretical notions of accessibility, iconicity, and markedness in this study, we analyze all the sentences containing cataphora in our Chinese-English bilingual parallel corpus in terms of both formal‘NP+VP’and cognitive-functional‘topic + comment/action’configurations, and interpret the cataphoric sentences basically in terms of the semantics of time as reflected in both topic continuity (referential sequence) and action continuity (temporal sequence). This cognitive-functional approach to the interpretation of sentential anaphora in narrative discourse leads us to arrive at a more feasible account of grounding, since the initial clause in a sentence containing cataphora is oriented by the unidirectionality of time, thus revealing a direct mapping between language and the conceptual world.
Our data analyses show that the ADV/subordination account of the sentence-initial V-ing clause is untenable, and the form-function mapping between imperfectivity/着and backgrounding is far from perfect. The study also examines the dynamic interaction between topic, aspect, and the use of conjunction within a cataphoric sentence in Chinese and English narrative discourse.
Up-playing inter-lingual similarity, the overall tendency shared is summarized as“to be iconic is to be economical”. Difference between the languages lies in the form-function mapping: it is more direct in Chinese and more indirect in English, correlated with and reflected in the more rigid order in Chinese and more flexible syntax (morphology) in English.
The conclusions are based on a self-collected bilingual parallel corpus: for SL Chinese, we employ Camel and Midnight, part of the former was employed by Li (2004); SL English data consists solely of narrative genre, as such is more consistent than van Hoek (1997).
引文
Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Ariel, M. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 3-42.
Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de & Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
Biber, D. et al. 1999/2000. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education Ltd. / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bloomfield, L. 1933 /1993. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bolinger, D. 1977. Pronouns and Repeated Nouns. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Bolinger, D. 1979. Pronouns in Discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), 289-309. Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. et al. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cann, Ronnie & Catriona McPherson. 2006. Interclausal Cataphora in English.
Accessed on 18 October 2006 from http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~ronnie/cat99- pretty.doc.
Carden, G. 1982. Backwards anaphora in discourse context. Journal of Linguistics, 18, 361-387.
Chafe, W. L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 21-52.
Chao, Yuen Ren (赵元任). 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkley: University of California Press.
Chao, Yuen Ren (赵元任). 2004. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. In《赵元任全集》(第三卷),北京:商务印书馆,1-856页.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Christensen, Matthew. 1994. Variation in Spoken and Written Mandarin Narrative Discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University. Accessed on April 16, 2007 from http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/chan9/ling/christensen/ch2.htm.
Chu, Chauncey C. (屈承熹) 1998. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang.
Chu, Chauncey C. 2005. Contrastive study: a functional discourse perspective. In潘文国主编,《翻译与对比研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,217-260页.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976/2005. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985/2005. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Cornish, F. 1996.“Antecedentless”anaphors: deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French. Journal of Linguistics, 32 (1), 19-41.
de Vega et al. 2004. On doing two things at once: Temporal constraints on actions in language comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 32 (7), 1033-1043.
de Vega, Manuel. & Mike, Rinck. 2007. Figure and ground in temporal sentences: the role of the adverbs When and While. Discourse Processes, 43 (1), 1-23.
Delesle, G. A. 1973. Discourse and Backward Pronominalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Foley, W. & R. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T. (ed.). 1979b. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Givón, T. 1993 I. English Grammar: A Functional-based Introduction. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1993 II. English Grammar: A Functional-based Introduction. Vol. 2.Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Qualitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1992. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5-55.
Givón, T. 2001 I. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 2001 II. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1979a. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic.
Givón, T. 1984. Syntax. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1987.‘Beyond Foreground and Background,’in Tomlin (ed.), 175-188.
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. et al. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-303.
Haiman, J. & S. A. Thompson (eds.). 1988. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haiman, John. (ed.). 1983a. Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax. Stanford, June 24-6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language, 56, 515-540.
Haiman, John. 1983b. Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59, 781-819.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976/2001. Cohesion in English. London: Longman / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
He, Xiaodan (贺小聃). 2005. A Cognitive Approach towards Sentence-internal Cataphora Translation from English into Chinese, MA thesis. Shanghai International Studies University.
Hopper, P. & S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 (4), 251-299.
Hopper, P. & S. A. Thompson. 1983. The Iconicity of the Universal Categories‘Noun’and‘Verbs’. In: John Haiman (ed.). 151-83.
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. In T. Givón (ed). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 213-241.
Hovav, M. R. & B. Levin (2001). An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives. Language, 77 (4), 766-797.
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross Linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keenan, E. L. & B. Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge. Koyama, Nobuko. 2004. Grounding and Deixis: A Comprehensive Approach to the Grounding Phenomenon in Japanese Narrative. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 2 (1), 1-44.
Kuno, 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 269-320.
Labov, William.1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987/2001. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press / Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38.
Langacker, R. W. 1991/2004. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press / Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
Levin, B. & Hovav Rappaport M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Levinson, S. C. 1987. Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora: A Partial PragmaticReduction of Binding and Control Phenomena. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 379-434.
Levinson, S. C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-161.
Levinson, S. C. 1983/2001. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1979. Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), 311-335.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Wendan (李文丹). 2004. Topic chains in Chinese discourse. Discourse Processes, 37 (1), 25-45.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2003. Aspectual selection and negation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics, 4 (3), 425-459.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2005. Time in a Language Without Tense: The Case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23, 1-53.
Longacre, Robert E. 1983. The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1995/2000. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Madden, C. J. & R. A. Zwaan. 2003. How does verb aspect constrain event representations? Memory & Cognition, 31 (5), 663-672.
Mathews, P. H. 1997/2000. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press / Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Matthiessen, C. & S. A. Thompson. 1988. The structure of discourse and “subordination”. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), 275-329.
Mitkov, Ruslan. 2002. Anaphora Resolution. London: Pearson Education.
Olohan, M. & M. Baker. 2000. Reporting that in translated English: evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation. Across Languages and Cultures, 1,141-158.
Orletti, Franca. 1995. Figure and ground in second language narratives: traces of iconicity, In R. Simone (ed.). 1995. Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 171-195.
Qian, Yuan. 1983. A comparison of some cohesive devices in English and Chinese. Foreign Languages, 1, 19-26.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reinhart, T. 1984. Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts. Linguistics, 22, 779-809.
Richards, Jack C. et al. 1992/2000. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London: Longman / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wilson, Robert A. & Frank C. Keil (ed.). 2000. The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Simone, R. 1995. Iconic aspects of syntax: a pragmatic approach. In R. Simone (ed.). Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 154-169.
Smith, Carlota S. & Mary S. Erbaugh. 2001. Temporal Information in Sentences of Mandarin. In Xu Liejiong and Shao Jingmin (eds.). New Views in Chinese Syntactic Research—International Symposium on Chinese Grammar for the New Millenium. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education Press.
Smith, Carlota S. 1983. A theory of aspectual choice. Language, 59 (3), 479-501.
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tai, James H-Y. 1983. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 49-72.
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.). Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Tanaka, I. 2000. The Value of an Annotated Corpus in the Investigation of Anaphoric Pronouns, with Particular Reference to Backwards Anaphora in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Lancaster.
Taylor, John. R. 1995/2001. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Thompson, S. 1983. Grammar and discourse: English detached participial clause. In F. Klein-Andreu (ed.). Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press. 43-65.
Thompson, S. A. & R. E. Longacre. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. II): Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171-234.
Tomlin, R. S. 1985. Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text, 5, 85-122.
Ungerer F. & H. Schmid. 1996/2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
van Hoek, Karen. 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
van Hoek, Karen. 1995. Conceptual Reference Points: A Cognitive Grammar Account of Pronominal Anaphora Constraints. Language, 71 (2), 310-340.
van Valin, R. D. & R. J. LaPolla. 1997/2002. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Peking University Press.
Xiao, Z. & T. McEnery. 2002. A corpus-based approach to tense and aspect in English-Chinese translation. International Symposium on Contrastive and Translation Studies between Chinese and English. Accessed on June 8, 2006 from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/68/1/shanghai_paper.pdf.
Xu, Y. L. 1984. Reference as a cohesive tie in Chinese and English narrative discourse: a contrastive study. MA thesis. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Xu, Y. L. 1995. Resolving Third-person Anaphora in Chinese Texts: Towards a Functional-pragmatic Model. Ph.D. dissertation. Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Yuan, Yan (袁艳). 2005. A Contrastive Study of Backwards Anaphora in English and Chinese. MA thesis. Shanghai International Studies University.
Zwaan, R. A. & G. A. Radvansky. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
陈平,1981,英语代词的前指与后指,《外语学刊》第1期,41-45页.
陈平,1987a,汉语零形回指的话语分析,《中国语文》第5期,363-378页.
陈平,1987b,释汉语中与名词性成分相关的四组概念,《中国语文》第2期,81-92页.
陈平,1991,《现代语言学研究》,重庆:重庆出版社.
陈前瑞、张华,2007,从句尾“了”到词尾“了”——《祖堂集》《三朝北盟会编》中“了”用法的发展,《语言教学与研究》第3期,63-71页.
范开泰,1990,省略隐含暗示,《语言教学与研究》第2期,20-32页.
高原,2003,从认知角度看英汉句内照应词使用的区别,《外语教学与研究》第3期,189-194页.
高增霞,2005,处所动词、处所介词和未完成体标记——体标记“在”和“着”语法化的类型学研究,《中国社会科学院研究生院学报》第4期,68-73页.
贺阳,1994,汉语完句成分试探,《语言教学与研究》第4期,26-38页.
胡明扬、劲松,1989,流水句初探,《语言教学与研究》第4期,42-54页.
黄南松, 2001,现代汉语的指称形式及其在篇章中的运用,《世界汉语教学》第2期,28-37页.
竟成,1996,汉语成句过程和时间概念的表述,《语文研究》第1期,1-5页.
孔令达,1994,影响汉语句子自足的语言形式,《中国语文》第6期,434-440页.
老舍著,Shi Xiao-jing译,2001,《骆驼祥子》(汉英对照),北京:外文出版社.
李瑟、刘伟、郭海云,2005,汉语第三人称代词预指功能研究,《北京交通大学学报》第4期,66-70页.
廖秋忠,1992,《廖秋忠文集》,北京:北京语言学院出版社.
刘礼进,1997,英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究,《外国语》第6期,40-44页.
刘礼进,2003,英汉第三人称代词后照应的几个问题,《外国语言文学》第1期,20-24页.
刘宓庆,1986,《文体与翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘宓庆,2006,《新编汉英对比与翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
鲁川,2001,《汉语语法的意合网络》,北京:商务印书馆.
陆振慧,2002,英汉语篇中指同表达的对比研究,《外语教学与研究》第5期,324-331页.
吕叔湘,1980,《现代汉语八百词》,北京:商务印书馆.
马庆株,2005b,词组的研究,载马庆株编,《语法研究入门》,北京:商务印书馆,459-471页.
马庆株编,2005a,《二十世纪现代汉语语法论文精选》,北京:商务印书馆.
屈承熹(Chu, Chauncey C.),2006,《汉语篇章语法:理论与方法》(手稿),(美国)佛罗里达大学.
屈承熹,1996,现代汉语中“句子”的定义及其地位,《世界汉语教学》第4期,16-23页.
沈家煊,2004,再谈“有界”与“无界”,载北大汉语语言学研究中心编,《语言学论丛》(第30辑),北京:商务印书馆,40-54页.
石毓智,2006,论汉语的进行体范畴,《汉语学习》第3期,14-24页.
史有为,1997,《汉语如是观》,北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
王灿龙,2000,人称代词“他”的照应功能研究,《中国语文》第3期,228-237页.
王灿龙,2006,英汉第三人称代词照应功能的单向性及其相关问题,《外语教学与研究》第1期,17-24页.
王力,1943/1985,《中国现代语法》,北京:商务印书馆.
王宗炎,1994,英语人称代词he/she能预指下文的名词吗?《外语教学与研究》第4期,36-39页.
许余龙,2000,英汉指称词语表达的可及性,《外语教学与研究》第5期,321-328页.
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙,2002,语篇回指的认知语言学探索,《外国语》第1期,28-37页.
许余龙,2003a,语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证,《外国语》第2期,17-24页.
许余龙,2003b,汉语主从句间的回指问题,《当代语言学》第2期,97-107页.
许余龙,2004,《篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙、贺小聃,2007,英汉下指的篇章功能和语用分析——兼谈汉语第三人称代词照应的单向性问题,《外语教学与研究》第6期,417-423页.
严辰松,2005,英汉语表达“实现”意义的词汇化模式,《外国语》第1期,23-29页.
赵宏、邵志洪,2002,英汉第三人称代词对比研究,《外语教学与研究》第3期,174-179页.
Ariel, M. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 3-42.
Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de & Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
Biber, D. et al. 1999/2000. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education Ltd. / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bloomfield, L. 1933 /1993. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bolinger, D. 1977. Pronouns and Repeated Nouns. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Bolinger, D. 1979. Pronouns in Discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), 289-309. Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. et al. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cann, Ronnie & Catriona McPherson. 2006. Interclausal Cataphora in English.
Accessed on 18 October 2006 from http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~ronnie/cat99- pretty.doc.
Carden, G. 1982. Backwards anaphora in discourse context. Journal of Linguistics, 18, 361-387.
Chafe, W. L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 21-52.
Chao, Yuen Ren (赵元任). 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkley: University of California Press.
Chao, Yuen Ren (赵元任). 2004. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. In《赵元任全集》(第三卷),北京:商务印书馆,1-856页.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Christensen, Matthew. 1994. Variation in Spoken and Written Mandarin Narrative Discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University. Accessed on April 16, 2007 from http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/chan9/ling/christensen/ch2.htm.
Chu, Chauncey C. (屈承熹) 1998. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang.
Chu, Chauncey C. 2005. Contrastive study: a functional discourse perspective. In潘文国主编,《翻译与对比研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,217-260页.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976/2005. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985/2005. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Cornish, F. 1996.“Antecedentless”anaphors: deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French. Journal of Linguistics, 32 (1), 19-41.
de Vega et al. 2004. On doing two things at once: Temporal constraints on actions in language comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 32 (7), 1033-1043.
de Vega, Manuel. & Mike, Rinck. 2007. Figure and ground in temporal sentences: the role of the adverbs When and While. Discourse Processes, 43 (1), 1-23.
Delesle, G. A. 1973. Discourse and Backward Pronominalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Foley, W. & R. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T. (ed.). 1979b. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Givón, T. 1993 I. English Grammar: A Functional-based Introduction. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1993 II. English Grammar: A Functional-based Introduction. Vol. 2.Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Qualitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1992. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5-55.
Givón, T. 2001 I. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 2001 II. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1979a. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic.
Givón, T. 1984. Syntax. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1987.‘Beyond Foreground and Background,’in Tomlin (ed.), 175-188.
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. et al. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-303.
Haiman, J. & S. A. Thompson (eds.). 1988. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haiman, John. (ed.). 1983a. Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax. Stanford, June 24-6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language, 56, 515-540.
Haiman, John. 1983b. Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59, 781-819.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976/2001. Cohesion in English. London: Longman / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
He, Xiaodan (贺小聃). 2005. A Cognitive Approach towards Sentence-internal Cataphora Translation from English into Chinese, MA thesis. Shanghai International Studies University.
Hopper, P. & S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 (4), 251-299.
Hopper, P. & S. A. Thompson. 1983. The Iconicity of the Universal Categories‘Noun’and‘Verbs’. In: John Haiman (ed.). 151-83.
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. In T. Givón (ed). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 213-241.
Hovav, M. R. & B. Levin (2001). An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives. Language, 77 (4), 766-797.
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross Linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keenan, E. L. & B. Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge. Koyama, Nobuko. 2004. Grounding and Deixis: A Comprehensive Approach to the Grounding Phenomenon in Japanese Narrative. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 2 (1), 1-44.
Kuno, 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 269-320.
Labov, William.1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987/2001. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press / Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38.
Langacker, R. W. 1991/2004. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press / Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
Levin, B. & Hovav Rappaport M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Levinson, S. C. 1987. Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora: A Partial PragmaticReduction of Binding and Control Phenomena. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 379-434.
Levinson, S. C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-161.
Levinson, S. C. 1983/2001. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1979. Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), 311-335.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Wendan (李文丹). 2004. Topic chains in Chinese discourse. Discourse Processes, 37 (1), 25-45.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2003. Aspectual selection and negation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics, 4 (3), 425-459.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2005. Time in a Language Without Tense: The Case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23, 1-53.
Longacre, Robert E. 1983. The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1995/2000. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Madden, C. J. & R. A. Zwaan. 2003. How does verb aspect constrain event representations? Memory & Cognition, 31 (5), 663-672.
Mathews, P. H. 1997/2000. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press / Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Matthiessen, C. & S. A. Thompson. 1988. The structure of discourse and “subordination”. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), 275-329.
Mitkov, Ruslan. 2002. Anaphora Resolution. London: Pearson Education.
Olohan, M. & M. Baker. 2000. Reporting that in translated English: evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation. Across Languages and Cultures, 1,141-158.
Orletti, Franca. 1995. Figure and ground in second language narratives: traces of iconicity, In R. Simone (ed.). 1995. Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 171-195.
Qian, Yuan. 1983. A comparison of some cohesive devices in English and Chinese. Foreign Languages, 1, 19-26.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reinhart, T. 1984. Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts. Linguistics, 22, 779-809.
Richards, Jack C. et al. 1992/2000. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London: Longman / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wilson, Robert A. & Frank C. Keil (ed.). 2000. The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Simone, R. 1995. Iconic aspects of syntax: a pragmatic approach. In R. Simone (ed.). Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 154-169.
Smith, Carlota S. & Mary S. Erbaugh. 2001. Temporal Information in Sentences of Mandarin. In Xu Liejiong and Shao Jingmin (eds.). New Views in Chinese Syntactic Research—International Symposium on Chinese Grammar for the New Millenium. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education Press.
Smith, Carlota S. 1983. A theory of aspectual choice. Language, 59 (3), 479-501.
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tai, James H-Y. 1983. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 49-72.
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.). Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Tanaka, I. 2000. The Value of an Annotated Corpus in the Investigation of Anaphoric Pronouns, with Particular Reference to Backwards Anaphora in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Lancaster.
Taylor, John. R. 1995/2001. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Thompson, S. 1983. Grammar and discourse: English detached participial clause. In F. Klein-Andreu (ed.). Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press. 43-65.
Thompson, S. A. & R. E. Longacre. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. II): Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171-234.
Tomlin, R. S. 1985. Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text, 5, 85-122.
Ungerer F. & H. Schmid. 1996/2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
van Hoek, Karen. 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
van Hoek, Karen. 1995. Conceptual Reference Points: A Cognitive Grammar Account of Pronominal Anaphora Constraints. Language, 71 (2), 310-340.
van Valin, R. D. & R. J. LaPolla. 1997/2002. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press / Beijing: Peking University Press.
Xiao, Z. & T. McEnery. 2002. A corpus-based approach to tense and aspect in English-Chinese translation. International Symposium on Contrastive and Translation Studies between Chinese and English. Accessed on June 8, 2006 from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/68/1/shanghai_paper.pdf.
Xu, Y. L. 1984. Reference as a cohesive tie in Chinese and English narrative discourse: a contrastive study. MA thesis. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Xu, Y. L. 1995. Resolving Third-person Anaphora in Chinese Texts: Towards a Functional-pragmatic Model. Ph.D. dissertation. Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Yuan, Yan (袁艳). 2005. A Contrastive Study of Backwards Anaphora in English and Chinese. MA thesis. Shanghai International Studies University.
Zwaan, R. A. & G. A. Radvansky. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
陈平,1981,英语代词的前指与后指,《外语学刊》第1期,41-45页.
陈平,1987a,汉语零形回指的话语分析,《中国语文》第5期,363-378页.
陈平,1987b,释汉语中与名词性成分相关的四组概念,《中国语文》第2期,81-92页.
陈平,1991,《现代语言学研究》,重庆:重庆出版社.
陈前瑞、张华,2007,从句尾“了”到词尾“了”——《祖堂集》《三朝北盟会编》中“了”用法的发展,《语言教学与研究》第3期,63-71页.
范开泰,1990,省略隐含暗示,《语言教学与研究》第2期,20-32页.
高原,2003,从认知角度看英汉句内照应词使用的区别,《外语教学与研究》第3期,189-194页.
高增霞,2005,处所动词、处所介词和未完成体标记——体标记“在”和“着”语法化的类型学研究,《中国社会科学院研究生院学报》第4期,68-73页.
贺阳,1994,汉语完句成分试探,《语言教学与研究》第4期,26-38页.
胡明扬、劲松,1989,流水句初探,《语言教学与研究》第4期,42-54页.
黄南松, 2001,现代汉语的指称形式及其在篇章中的运用,《世界汉语教学》第2期,28-37页.
竟成,1996,汉语成句过程和时间概念的表述,《语文研究》第1期,1-5页.
孔令达,1994,影响汉语句子自足的语言形式,《中国语文》第6期,434-440页.
老舍著,Shi Xiao-jing译,2001,《骆驼祥子》(汉英对照),北京:外文出版社.
李瑟、刘伟、郭海云,2005,汉语第三人称代词预指功能研究,《北京交通大学学报》第4期,66-70页.
廖秋忠,1992,《廖秋忠文集》,北京:北京语言学院出版社.
刘礼进,1997,英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究,《外国语》第6期,40-44页.
刘礼进,2003,英汉第三人称代词后照应的几个问题,《外国语言文学》第1期,20-24页.
刘宓庆,1986,《文体与翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘宓庆,2006,《新编汉英对比与翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
鲁川,2001,《汉语语法的意合网络》,北京:商务印书馆.
陆振慧,2002,英汉语篇中指同表达的对比研究,《外语教学与研究》第5期,324-331页.
吕叔湘,1980,《现代汉语八百词》,北京:商务印书馆.
马庆株,2005b,词组的研究,载马庆株编,《语法研究入门》,北京:商务印书馆,459-471页.
马庆株编,2005a,《二十世纪现代汉语语法论文精选》,北京:商务印书馆.
屈承熹(Chu, Chauncey C.),2006,《汉语篇章语法:理论与方法》(手稿),(美国)佛罗里达大学.
屈承熹,1996,现代汉语中“句子”的定义及其地位,《世界汉语教学》第4期,16-23页.
沈家煊,2004,再谈“有界”与“无界”,载北大汉语语言学研究中心编,《语言学论丛》(第30辑),北京:商务印书馆,40-54页.
石毓智,2006,论汉语的进行体范畴,《汉语学习》第3期,14-24页.
史有为,1997,《汉语如是观》,北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
王灿龙,2000,人称代词“他”的照应功能研究,《中国语文》第3期,228-237页.
王灿龙,2006,英汉第三人称代词照应功能的单向性及其相关问题,《外语教学与研究》第1期,17-24页.
王力,1943/1985,《中国现代语法》,北京:商务印书馆.
王宗炎,1994,英语人称代词he/she能预指下文的名词吗?《外语教学与研究》第4期,36-39页.
许余龙,2000,英汉指称词语表达的可及性,《外语教学与研究》第5期,321-328页.
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙,2002,语篇回指的认知语言学探索,《外国语》第1期,28-37页.
许余龙,2003a,语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证,《外国语》第2期,17-24页.
许余龙,2003b,汉语主从句间的回指问题,《当代语言学》第2期,97-107页.
许余龙,2004,《篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙、贺小聃,2007,英汉下指的篇章功能和语用分析——兼谈汉语第三人称代词照应的单向性问题,《外语教学与研究》第6期,417-423页.
严辰松,2005,英汉语表达“实现”意义的词汇化模式,《外国语》第1期,23-29页.
赵宏、邵志洪,2002,英汉第三人称代词对比研究,《外语教学与研究》第3期,174-179页.