基于制约条件的英语语篇语义分析及构建
|
摘要
意义是语篇交际的主要内容,语义是语篇的本质属性。语篇语义学是对超越句子的语言复合体的意义的研究。但是,语篇语义学理论不充分、不完善,是当前制约自然语言处理的瓶颈之一。
语篇意义的研究有较长的历史,但是作为一个研究领域“语篇语义学”是在1980年代才正式被提出,而且目前的几种学派各有侧重,研究理论和方法尚未形成统一的、完整的体系。甚至语篇语义的实体概念都没有清晰地提出过,基本都是把语篇意义作为心理学或话语分析的一个话题展开,偏重把语篇的意义看作是心理的属性,而语篇语义的语言学范畴的系统研究不多。
本文以语言项的形式-意义制约关系为主线,把制约的视角拓展到语篇的层次,探索语篇的语义内容和结构的来源、成因,以及处理的方法,构建一个完整的语篇语义分析和处理的体系。本文的目的是在小句之下、句子层、句际关系、语篇层等四个层次上,讨论知识整合、信息操作、形成推理、语义表征等方面语义操作,构建一个综合的、整体性的语篇语义分析和处理的模型,对语篇意义的来源或基础、语篇整体的语义信息的处理过程、语义内容的组织方式、语篇语义结构的形式化表征等方面做出解释和说明。
国外语篇语义研究主要有四大学派。欧洲大陆学派的语篇语义研究,侧重于从语言学和心理学的角度研究语篇的意义内容。van Dijk(1980)讨论了语篇语义的宏观结构,分析如何通过宏观规则的操作形成宏观命题;后来又在话语分析的框架下提出了话语的语义分析的七大特征或原则(Van Dijk, 1985a)。Seuren(1985)的《语篇语义学》是第一本以此为题的专著。它以模型-理论范式,整合了简化的命题(reduced propositions)之间的语篇计算和真值条件计算,从而展现了句子的意义是如何受到连贯语篇中的条件制约的。但是,他的着眼点最终还是以句子为主,对语篇的语用功能、语篇整体的特征等都没有涉及。
悉尼学派的语篇语义研究,是在系统功能语法框架下,从社会学的角度研究作为社会符号的语篇在人际交往中的意义或功能,主要是结合系统理论和功能理论,研究语篇的概念意义、人际意义和谋篇意义,并在系统功能的基础上提出了语言评价理论和语篇格律理论。语篇语义学是系统功能语言学的一部分,不是一个独立的分支。
美国的形式语义学派的语篇语义研究,叫做动态语义学,代表理论是话语表征理论。语篇语义的基础是句子的真值条件,依靠符号和公式做严格的演算和表征,来计算、推导小句之间的意义关系。
美国的功能主义学派的语篇语义研究,主要是在功能语法和话语分析领域,在信息结构、话题结构、指示关系等课题的研究成果深化了对语篇语义的认识。在语篇结构方面,修辞结构理论可以说明语篇段之间功能上的关系和整个语篇的层级性结构。
在心理学的语篇理解的研究中,Kintsch(1988)的构造-整合模型,解释语篇中的语言知识是如何操作和整合,以形成语篇的心理表征的。Gernsbacher(1990)的结构建造框架,认为语篇理解是通过对语篇提供的信息的心理表征的强化或抑制,实现语篇的心理表征的构建。
国内的语篇语义学研究刚起步,只有少数几篇论文,都是系统功能语言学框架下的语篇意义的研究。
心理语言学的语篇语义研究侧重依照语言理解的心理学机制解释语篇语义的处理过程,但是在语言学上的观察和实验却是离散的,缺乏对语言现象的全面的把握和处理。形式语义学通过真值条件的逻辑公式来描写语篇语义关系,虽然准确、简洁、无歧义,但是对真值条件不确定的句子,如涉及语境和语用因素的,则无法处理。功能主义的语篇语义研究,较好地分析和掌握了语言的形式、结构和功能之间的关系,但是没有形成对这个分析过程的形式化的即表征,需要一个形式化的体系来全面而系统地记录语义分析和处理的过程。
本文有两个根本问题。一个核心问题是:语篇语义学在多大程度上可以落实到语言的实体上?换句话说,语篇的语义在多大程度上是语言为中心的?因为语篇的是“使用中的话语”,必然涉及社会、心理等方面的因素。语篇语义学在多大程度是语言学的,多大程度上是社会学和心理学的?
这个问题又可以分解为几个子问题。首先,语篇语义的基础来源是什么?是词语?句子?还是语篇?其次,语篇的语义是怎么形成的?如何从词语、句子,以及句子和语篇的组织获得语篇整体的意义?第三,语篇的语义具有怎样的结构?另一个核心问题是:语篇的语义如何描写或表征?即,如何把语篇的语义分析的结果整合在一个统一的框架中描写出来。
本文的语义的基础是语言哲学上的整体论,即一个元素只有在整体中才有意义。语篇语义学既尊重语篇语义的组合性,从词、句的语义实体出发,进行语篇语义的构建;又重视语篇意义的整体性,充分考虑语篇整体的规约结构和意义。而且,整体论的语言学体系是非模块性,本研究中语篇语义分析的四个层次的区分是为分析的方便,它们并不是自然的、自治的,而是有内在的联系的。
本文的理论基础是语篇语言学中的语义理论和构式语法中形式-意义对应的观点。在语义构建方面,本文认为语言项体现了形式-意义的制约关系,把语篇语言学中语义特征的分析和语篇语义构建中的各成分之间的关系,都分析为形式-意义之间的制约条件。这些制约条件标记为属性-值矩阵,以盒装图的形式表征出来,实现对语篇语义的描写。
本文的研究方法是分析和比较语篇语义研究的理论,以制约条件为主导,构建起本研究的理论框架,然后通过语言实例来分析和论证,完善和改进该模型。
在本研究的语篇语义学模型中,对语篇语义的处理包括三个方面:(1)内容,(2)结构,(3)表征。首先是对语篇语义的基础来源和基本内容的分析,进而是对这些内容的组织结构的分析,最后是把前两者予以形式化的表征。
语言项是意义与形式的结合体,二者是一种互动的制约关系,这种制约是语篇的语义信息处理的指向标,指导着语篇的信息单位以何种形式来操作:建立新信息,强化或者抑制已有信息。本文在四个层次上来分析语篇语义和结构方面的制约关系。
1.小句之下的信息和特征,主要包括:(1)独立的程序语的语义信息和特征,(2)短语的可及性与信息处理的关系,(3)关键词对于语篇意义框架的激活作用三个方面。
2.句子层的信息和特征。小句是语篇语义的基本单位,语义分析包括三个步骤:(1)先从小句的题元结构分析获得基本的概念意义或逻辑意义;(2)然后通过信息结构的分析,明确语义内容在小句内的分布所传递话题、焦点等意义;(3)最后,还要考虑句子整体所具有的构式意义。
3.小句关系的信息和特征。明确句际关系的本质是语义关系,在表达上分为两种情况:一是有语言标识的句际关系,有联系语和语法结构两个类别;二是无语言标识的句际关系,这主要是推理。
4.语篇整体的信息和特征。把语篇看作是体现了功能和形式的对应的规约化的构式,相对应地本文从体裁和语篇类型分析语篇的交际功能和形式结构,重视语篇整体结构所传达的信息。
这四个层次中,1和2属于语篇语义内容的分析,3和4属于语义结构的分析。二者又可归为一个范畴,即对语篇语义的实体的分析。
语篇语义的另一个范畴是表征,即对语篇语义的形式化描写。本文提出以嵌套的特征结构盒装图为主要手段,表征语篇段的语义关系和结构,实现对语篇语义内容分析和结构构建的过程的描写。
本研究试图证明,以制约条件为主线,通过构建一个整体性的分析和表征的体系,一方面,我们可以实现自下而上的从词语到语篇的语义分析,也可以实现自上而下的语篇整体对其成分的意义和结构的制约因素的分析,另一方面,也可以通过特征结构的盒装图实现对整个语篇语义分析和处理做全程的描写和表征。
本研究也存在一些局限性。首先,研究方法依然属于内省法。理论的完整性和实践的可行性还需要在自然语篇的意义处理中进一步检验和完善。在语料方面还不够丰富,中英文语料也没有区分,而且对语料的分析可以更详细和深入。语篇语义分析的盒状图的形式表征还要进一步细化。
Discourse is“the totality of codified linguistic usages attached to a given type of social practice”. The chief function of discourse is to transfer meaning in communication, and semantics is the core in discourse studies. Discourse Semantics (DS) is the study of the meaning of any language complex beyond the scale of sentence.
Discourse semantics is just at the beginning both in theoretical and empirical studies. By far researchers have not yet made consistent and systematic description or analysis on the phenomena and facts concerning discourse meaning. In a sense, discourse semantics has become the bottle-neck to restrain full processing of natural discourse. Consequently, there is an emergent call for comprehensive and sufficient studies in this area.
Studies on discourse meaning have a long history, but Discourse Semantics as a branch of linguistics was not acknowledged until by the 1980s, when several research schools address to the topic from different perspectives. As the approaches adapted by these schools are so diversified, it cannot be truly said that DS has developed into a full-fledged research paradigm, in particular that there still lack a widely acknowledged theoretical framework and practical methodology in the field. Even the notion of“discourse semantics as an entity”has not been clearly raised and defined. In fact, researchers have been treating DS as a subtopic or a subdivision of psychology and/or Discourse Analysis, putting premium on the psychological aspects of DS, with the linguistic aspects largely less attended.
This dissertation is a tentative study on Discourse Semantics which attempts, first, to build up a comprehensive and holistic framework that incorporates the processes of discourse semantic analysis in terms of knowledge integration, information management and inference forming, and then, to develop a representative mechanism to formalize such an analytical and constructive procedure. In general, the model of discourse semantics here includes three parts: the analysis of semantic sources and contents of a discourse, the analysis of the semantic structure, and the representation of discourse meaning.
For the convenience to analyze the contents and structure of discourse meaning, the paper breaks down the analytical process into four levels, i.e. the under-clause level, the clause level, the inter-clause relations, and the discourse level. It should be clearly noted in advance that such four levels are an arbitrary classification for the sake of technical processing, which is by no means to say that they are natural and autonomous boundaries or levels of discourse semantics. In fact, it is rather common to find that, in a discourse, the processing of some language items simultaneously involve more than one levels of semantic analysis.
Language items in discourse are taken as“constructions”, a notion borrowed from Construction Grammar, which displays constraints between form and meaning. The notion of“form-meaning constraint”is the main thread running through the process of discourse semantic analysis and representation. From the constraint perspective, it first analyzes the sources of discourse meaning from words to clauses, till to the discourse level, and then incorporates the contents of such sources into an integrated system.
Studies in DS can be classified into four major schools. First, the European Continental School took initiatives in the area in the 1980s. From the psycholinguistic perspective, researches usually follow the pattern of language comprehension in mental mechanism while analyzing discourse semantics. Chief researches and achievements in this school are van Dijk’s Macrostructure theory. Seuren gave a different picture in Discourse Semantics, in which DS is reduced to incremental values of sentence meanings, determined not only be truth-conditional computation but also by discourse computation. However, Seuren’s model overlooks the function of discourse patterns.
Second, the Sydney School studies DS within the research paradigm of Systemic and Functional Grammar (SFG). From the sociological view, discourse is taken as social semiotics which fulfils the communication of ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaning. Chief achievements of DS in this school are Appraisal Theory and Periodicity Theory. As a result, DS is not an independent branch of linguistic study, for it is just a level or a division of language analysis in SFG.
The third school is with the study of formal semantics in the U.S., which is known as Dynamic Semantics. Influential theory in this respect is Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), and its revision of Standard Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT). DS in this approach is based on truth values of sentences, which are computed and represented by rigid signs and formulae.
The fourth school is the American Functional School, mainly in the fields of Functional Grammar and Discourse Analysis. Research findings in information structure, topic and focus, reference identification, etc. have enhanced understandings in discourse meaning. As a result studies about theories and methodology in discourse semantics are brought to a new stage.
Besides, in researches of discourse comprehension in psychology, Kintsch’s Construction-Integration Model and Gernsbacher’s Structure-Building Model provide different but comprehensive framework for the processing of discourse segments in the mental mechanism, which are highly helpful in guiding linguistically semantic processing of discourse meaning.
DS in China is just at the beginning, with only a few papers in the area, all of them in the Systemic Functional Grammar approach.
DS from the psycholinguistic approach gives an account of semantic processing in light of psychological mechanism, but the manner of observation and analysis on language data is discrete, which means that it may neglect some crucial linguistic aspects concerning discourse meaning. DS in formal semantics is accurate, concise, and nonambiguous, but it fails to account for context-sensitive sentences whose truth values are not clear or even without truth values. The functional approach gives comprehensive and systematic analysis for DS, but it requires a representative formalism to record the analytical procedure and the construction of discourse semantic structure.
The research addresses two fundamental questions. One is to what extent DS can be reduced to linguistic entities. In other words, how can we say DS is derived from language facts? As discourse is“language in use”, discourse semantics naturally involves social and psychological factors, among other things. Then, how much can we say that DS is linguistic? And how much social and/or psychological?
In this research, discourse semantics is treated as linguistic entities. This question is further addressed in several subquestions. First, what are the sources of discourse semantics? Is DS from words, sentences, or discourse? Second, can we obtain meaning from the structure of a discourse by analyzing text organization? Third, does DS have a semantic structure? What is it like?
The other question is how to describe and represent DS. That is, how can we represent the analytical results of semantic contents and structure of a discourse in a consistent and systematic formal mechanism?
The semantic view of this research is holism in language philosophy. Hence compositionality and holistic nature of discourse are treated on a par in this model. This model starts from building up semantic contents to form a structure of discourse meaning in the bottom-up fashion, and in the meantime, it also takes into serious account of the holistic features of discourse as conventional patterns in the top-down fashion. What’s more, according to holism, linguistic system is not modular. Therefore, the distinction of four levels of semantic analysis in this dissertation is simply for analytical convenience. It is by no means to say that any level is a natural and self-contained part of DS. In fact, there are interconnections and cross-references among them.
In theory, the research is based on two foundations: theories in Discourse Analysis (or Text Linguistics) and that in Construction Grammar. Following the principle of constraints between form and meaning, it first carries out thorough analysis on semantic contents and semantic structure of discourse, which are treated as linguistic entities of DS. These semantic entities are incorporated in a representational formalism in terms of attribute-value matrix, displayed in the shape of box diagrams.
The research takes a theoretic-model approach to DS, but further reduces semantics to manageable proportions. By an analytical and critical review of previous theories in related areas, the dissertation first establish for itself a scaffolding of discourse semantic analysis, and then set up a framework of representation formalism. Then it supplies with language data to test the operational feasibility of such model.
In general, the research consists of three parts, which are contents, structure, and representation of discourse semantics respectively. It first accounts for the sources of discourse meaning, i.e. words and sentences; then it discusses semantic structure of discourse meaning in terms of organizational relations and discourse patterns; in the end it provides a representative formalism for the former two parts.
A language item stands for a correspondence between form and meaning, with inevitable constraints between the two sides. Such constraints give indication to the direction and the manner of how to process such an item in a discourse: either to enhance the previous information unit by projecting the new information on it if the constraints are closely related, or to suppress the previous information if the constraints are opposite, or to establish a new information unit if the constraints are irrelevant. Constraints in discourse semantic contents and structure are analyzed in four levels.
1. Information and properties beneath the clause level. Information and properties which contribute to discourse semantics in this level are in three categories: 1) the independent procedural information, 2) forms of phrases and their accessibility, and 3) functions of key words in facilitating interpretation of other language items and in forming inference by activating a situational frame.
2. Information and properties at the clause level. Clauses constitutes the basic units of discourse meaning. Semantic analyses of clauses in discourse are carried out in three stages: 1) argument structure analysis, to get the basic information of its conceptual meaning and logical structure, 2) information structure analysis, to capture properties of information distribution within the clauses, and 3) construction analysis, to include the constructional meaning of the clause as a whole.
3. Information and properties of inter-clausal relations. Clause relations in nature are semantics relations, which are classified into two categories according to the surface linguistic expressions: 1) clause relations with linguistic signals and 2) those without. For the former, there are two types: i) those connected with connectives and ii) those connected by grammatical structures. For the latter, clauses are connected by forming inference.
4. Information and properties of discourse as a whole. Discourse patterns are conventional constructions, also with correspondence between the function and form of discourse, which are analyzed in terms of genres and text types respectively. This section puts particular emphasis on the holistic features and functions of discourse. Among the four levels, the first two belong to the contents of discourse semantic analysis, while the latter two are the structure of discourse semantic analysis. Those two categories constitute the linguistic entities of discourse analysis, thus forming one unified respect of DS in this model.
The other respect in the model is the representational mechanism, i.e. formalism of DS. The model describes semantic entities and relations in DS in terms of feature structures, which take the shape of (embedded) box diagrams.
The research proves that we can establish an integrated and holistic framework to account for the analysis and representation of DS according to constraints between form and meaning. On one hand, it not only simulates the procedure of building up meaning from words, sentences, till to discourse in the bottom-up way, but also accounts for the functions and properties of discourse against its components in the top-down way. On the other hand, it incorporates the analytical procedure into a representational formalism, thus giving a full description to discourse semantic processing.
The research also has some limitations. The approach is fundamentally a retrospective one, in that it first sets up a theoretical model and then support with language facts to prove it. Naturally, it calls for more language data to test the feasibility of such a model in natural language processing and then to improve or amend it. Besides, during analysis the language data are not distinguished between English and Chinese, but they may be very different in nature. As a tentative attempt to develop a representative formalism for DS, much of it is rather crude, and in need of fine elaboration in future research.
语篇意义的研究有较长的历史,但是作为一个研究领域“语篇语义学”是在1980年代才正式被提出,而且目前的几种学派各有侧重,研究理论和方法尚未形成统一的、完整的体系。甚至语篇语义的实体概念都没有清晰地提出过,基本都是把语篇意义作为心理学或话语分析的一个话题展开,偏重把语篇的意义看作是心理的属性,而语篇语义的语言学范畴的系统研究不多。
本文以语言项的形式-意义制约关系为主线,把制约的视角拓展到语篇的层次,探索语篇的语义内容和结构的来源、成因,以及处理的方法,构建一个完整的语篇语义分析和处理的体系。本文的目的是在小句之下、句子层、句际关系、语篇层等四个层次上,讨论知识整合、信息操作、形成推理、语义表征等方面语义操作,构建一个综合的、整体性的语篇语义分析和处理的模型,对语篇意义的来源或基础、语篇整体的语义信息的处理过程、语义内容的组织方式、语篇语义结构的形式化表征等方面做出解释和说明。
国外语篇语义研究主要有四大学派。欧洲大陆学派的语篇语义研究,侧重于从语言学和心理学的角度研究语篇的意义内容。van Dijk(1980)讨论了语篇语义的宏观结构,分析如何通过宏观规则的操作形成宏观命题;后来又在话语分析的框架下提出了话语的语义分析的七大特征或原则(Van Dijk, 1985a)。Seuren(1985)的《语篇语义学》是第一本以此为题的专著。它以模型-理论范式,整合了简化的命题(reduced propositions)之间的语篇计算和真值条件计算,从而展现了句子的意义是如何受到连贯语篇中的条件制约的。但是,他的着眼点最终还是以句子为主,对语篇的语用功能、语篇整体的特征等都没有涉及。
悉尼学派的语篇语义研究,是在系统功能语法框架下,从社会学的角度研究作为社会符号的语篇在人际交往中的意义或功能,主要是结合系统理论和功能理论,研究语篇的概念意义、人际意义和谋篇意义,并在系统功能的基础上提出了语言评价理论和语篇格律理论。语篇语义学是系统功能语言学的一部分,不是一个独立的分支。
美国的形式语义学派的语篇语义研究,叫做动态语义学,代表理论是话语表征理论。语篇语义的基础是句子的真值条件,依靠符号和公式做严格的演算和表征,来计算、推导小句之间的意义关系。
美国的功能主义学派的语篇语义研究,主要是在功能语法和话语分析领域,在信息结构、话题结构、指示关系等课题的研究成果深化了对语篇语义的认识。在语篇结构方面,修辞结构理论可以说明语篇段之间功能上的关系和整个语篇的层级性结构。
在心理学的语篇理解的研究中,Kintsch(1988)的构造-整合模型,解释语篇中的语言知识是如何操作和整合,以形成语篇的心理表征的。Gernsbacher(1990)的结构建造框架,认为语篇理解是通过对语篇提供的信息的心理表征的强化或抑制,实现语篇的心理表征的构建。
国内的语篇语义学研究刚起步,只有少数几篇论文,都是系统功能语言学框架下的语篇意义的研究。
心理语言学的语篇语义研究侧重依照语言理解的心理学机制解释语篇语义的处理过程,但是在语言学上的观察和实验却是离散的,缺乏对语言现象的全面的把握和处理。形式语义学通过真值条件的逻辑公式来描写语篇语义关系,虽然准确、简洁、无歧义,但是对真值条件不确定的句子,如涉及语境和语用因素的,则无法处理。功能主义的语篇语义研究,较好地分析和掌握了语言的形式、结构和功能之间的关系,但是没有形成对这个分析过程的形式化的即表征,需要一个形式化的体系来全面而系统地记录语义分析和处理的过程。
本文有两个根本问题。一个核心问题是:语篇语义学在多大程度上可以落实到语言的实体上?换句话说,语篇的语义在多大程度上是语言为中心的?因为语篇的是“使用中的话语”,必然涉及社会、心理等方面的因素。语篇语义学在多大程度是语言学的,多大程度上是社会学和心理学的?
这个问题又可以分解为几个子问题。首先,语篇语义的基础来源是什么?是词语?句子?还是语篇?其次,语篇的语义是怎么形成的?如何从词语、句子,以及句子和语篇的组织获得语篇整体的意义?第三,语篇的语义具有怎样的结构?另一个核心问题是:语篇的语义如何描写或表征?即,如何把语篇的语义分析的结果整合在一个统一的框架中描写出来。
本文的语义的基础是语言哲学上的整体论,即一个元素只有在整体中才有意义。语篇语义学既尊重语篇语义的组合性,从词、句的语义实体出发,进行语篇语义的构建;又重视语篇意义的整体性,充分考虑语篇整体的规约结构和意义。而且,整体论的语言学体系是非模块性,本研究中语篇语义分析的四个层次的区分是为分析的方便,它们并不是自然的、自治的,而是有内在的联系的。
本文的理论基础是语篇语言学中的语义理论和构式语法中形式-意义对应的观点。在语义构建方面,本文认为语言项体现了形式-意义的制约关系,把语篇语言学中语义特征的分析和语篇语义构建中的各成分之间的关系,都分析为形式-意义之间的制约条件。这些制约条件标记为属性-值矩阵,以盒装图的形式表征出来,实现对语篇语义的描写。
本文的研究方法是分析和比较语篇语义研究的理论,以制约条件为主导,构建起本研究的理论框架,然后通过语言实例来分析和论证,完善和改进该模型。
在本研究的语篇语义学模型中,对语篇语义的处理包括三个方面:(1)内容,(2)结构,(3)表征。首先是对语篇语义的基础来源和基本内容的分析,进而是对这些内容的组织结构的分析,最后是把前两者予以形式化的表征。
语言项是意义与形式的结合体,二者是一种互动的制约关系,这种制约是语篇的语义信息处理的指向标,指导着语篇的信息单位以何种形式来操作:建立新信息,强化或者抑制已有信息。本文在四个层次上来分析语篇语义和结构方面的制约关系。
1.小句之下的信息和特征,主要包括:(1)独立的程序语的语义信息和特征,(2)短语的可及性与信息处理的关系,(3)关键词对于语篇意义框架的激活作用三个方面。
2.句子层的信息和特征。小句是语篇语义的基本单位,语义分析包括三个步骤:(1)先从小句的题元结构分析获得基本的概念意义或逻辑意义;(2)然后通过信息结构的分析,明确语义内容在小句内的分布所传递话题、焦点等意义;(3)最后,还要考虑句子整体所具有的构式意义。
3.小句关系的信息和特征。明确句际关系的本质是语义关系,在表达上分为两种情况:一是有语言标识的句际关系,有联系语和语法结构两个类别;二是无语言标识的句际关系,这主要是推理。
4.语篇整体的信息和特征。把语篇看作是体现了功能和形式的对应的规约化的构式,相对应地本文从体裁和语篇类型分析语篇的交际功能和形式结构,重视语篇整体结构所传达的信息。
这四个层次中,1和2属于语篇语义内容的分析,3和4属于语义结构的分析。二者又可归为一个范畴,即对语篇语义的实体的分析。
语篇语义的另一个范畴是表征,即对语篇语义的形式化描写。本文提出以嵌套的特征结构盒装图为主要手段,表征语篇段的语义关系和结构,实现对语篇语义内容分析和结构构建的过程的描写。
本研究试图证明,以制约条件为主线,通过构建一个整体性的分析和表征的体系,一方面,我们可以实现自下而上的从词语到语篇的语义分析,也可以实现自上而下的语篇整体对其成分的意义和结构的制约因素的分析,另一方面,也可以通过特征结构的盒装图实现对整个语篇语义分析和处理做全程的描写和表征。
本研究也存在一些局限性。首先,研究方法依然属于内省法。理论的完整性和实践的可行性还需要在自然语篇的意义处理中进一步检验和完善。在语料方面还不够丰富,中英文语料也没有区分,而且对语料的分析可以更详细和深入。语篇语义分析的盒状图的形式表征还要进一步细化。
Discourse is“the totality of codified linguistic usages attached to a given type of social practice”. The chief function of discourse is to transfer meaning in communication, and semantics is the core in discourse studies. Discourse Semantics (DS) is the study of the meaning of any language complex beyond the scale of sentence.
Discourse semantics is just at the beginning both in theoretical and empirical studies. By far researchers have not yet made consistent and systematic description or analysis on the phenomena and facts concerning discourse meaning. In a sense, discourse semantics has become the bottle-neck to restrain full processing of natural discourse. Consequently, there is an emergent call for comprehensive and sufficient studies in this area.
Studies on discourse meaning have a long history, but Discourse Semantics as a branch of linguistics was not acknowledged until by the 1980s, when several research schools address to the topic from different perspectives. As the approaches adapted by these schools are so diversified, it cannot be truly said that DS has developed into a full-fledged research paradigm, in particular that there still lack a widely acknowledged theoretical framework and practical methodology in the field. Even the notion of“discourse semantics as an entity”has not been clearly raised and defined. In fact, researchers have been treating DS as a subtopic or a subdivision of psychology and/or Discourse Analysis, putting premium on the psychological aspects of DS, with the linguistic aspects largely less attended.
This dissertation is a tentative study on Discourse Semantics which attempts, first, to build up a comprehensive and holistic framework that incorporates the processes of discourse semantic analysis in terms of knowledge integration, information management and inference forming, and then, to develop a representative mechanism to formalize such an analytical and constructive procedure. In general, the model of discourse semantics here includes three parts: the analysis of semantic sources and contents of a discourse, the analysis of the semantic structure, and the representation of discourse meaning.
For the convenience to analyze the contents and structure of discourse meaning, the paper breaks down the analytical process into four levels, i.e. the under-clause level, the clause level, the inter-clause relations, and the discourse level. It should be clearly noted in advance that such four levels are an arbitrary classification for the sake of technical processing, which is by no means to say that they are natural and autonomous boundaries or levels of discourse semantics. In fact, it is rather common to find that, in a discourse, the processing of some language items simultaneously involve more than one levels of semantic analysis.
Language items in discourse are taken as“constructions”, a notion borrowed from Construction Grammar, which displays constraints between form and meaning. The notion of“form-meaning constraint”is the main thread running through the process of discourse semantic analysis and representation. From the constraint perspective, it first analyzes the sources of discourse meaning from words to clauses, till to the discourse level, and then incorporates the contents of such sources into an integrated system.
Studies in DS can be classified into four major schools. First, the European Continental School took initiatives in the area in the 1980s. From the psycholinguistic perspective, researches usually follow the pattern of language comprehension in mental mechanism while analyzing discourse semantics. Chief researches and achievements in this school are van Dijk’s Macrostructure theory. Seuren gave a different picture in Discourse Semantics, in which DS is reduced to incremental values of sentence meanings, determined not only be truth-conditional computation but also by discourse computation. However, Seuren’s model overlooks the function of discourse patterns.
Second, the Sydney School studies DS within the research paradigm of Systemic and Functional Grammar (SFG). From the sociological view, discourse is taken as social semiotics which fulfils the communication of ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaning. Chief achievements of DS in this school are Appraisal Theory and Periodicity Theory. As a result, DS is not an independent branch of linguistic study, for it is just a level or a division of language analysis in SFG.
The third school is with the study of formal semantics in the U.S., which is known as Dynamic Semantics. Influential theory in this respect is Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), and its revision of Standard Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT). DS in this approach is based on truth values of sentences, which are computed and represented by rigid signs and formulae.
The fourth school is the American Functional School, mainly in the fields of Functional Grammar and Discourse Analysis. Research findings in information structure, topic and focus, reference identification, etc. have enhanced understandings in discourse meaning. As a result studies about theories and methodology in discourse semantics are brought to a new stage.
Besides, in researches of discourse comprehension in psychology, Kintsch’s Construction-Integration Model and Gernsbacher’s Structure-Building Model provide different but comprehensive framework for the processing of discourse segments in the mental mechanism, which are highly helpful in guiding linguistically semantic processing of discourse meaning.
DS in China is just at the beginning, with only a few papers in the area, all of them in the Systemic Functional Grammar approach.
DS from the psycholinguistic approach gives an account of semantic processing in light of psychological mechanism, but the manner of observation and analysis on language data is discrete, which means that it may neglect some crucial linguistic aspects concerning discourse meaning. DS in formal semantics is accurate, concise, and nonambiguous, but it fails to account for context-sensitive sentences whose truth values are not clear or even without truth values. The functional approach gives comprehensive and systematic analysis for DS, but it requires a representative formalism to record the analytical procedure and the construction of discourse semantic structure.
The research addresses two fundamental questions. One is to what extent DS can be reduced to linguistic entities. In other words, how can we say DS is derived from language facts? As discourse is“language in use”, discourse semantics naturally involves social and psychological factors, among other things. Then, how much can we say that DS is linguistic? And how much social and/or psychological?
In this research, discourse semantics is treated as linguistic entities. This question is further addressed in several subquestions. First, what are the sources of discourse semantics? Is DS from words, sentences, or discourse? Second, can we obtain meaning from the structure of a discourse by analyzing text organization? Third, does DS have a semantic structure? What is it like?
The other question is how to describe and represent DS. That is, how can we represent the analytical results of semantic contents and structure of a discourse in a consistent and systematic formal mechanism?
The semantic view of this research is holism in language philosophy. Hence compositionality and holistic nature of discourse are treated on a par in this model. This model starts from building up semantic contents to form a structure of discourse meaning in the bottom-up fashion, and in the meantime, it also takes into serious account of the holistic features of discourse as conventional patterns in the top-down fashion. What’s more, according to holism, linguistic system is not modular. Therefore, the distinction of four levels of semantic analysis in this dissertation is simply for analytical convenience. It is by no means to say that any level is a natural and self-contained part of DS. In fact, there are interconnections and cross-references among them.
In theory, the research is based on two foundations: theories in Discourse Analysis (or Text Linguistics) and that in Construction Grammar. Following the principle of constraints between form and meaning, it first carries out thorough analysis on semantic contents and semantic structure of discourse, which are treated as linguistic entities of DS. These semantic entities are incorporated in a representational formalism in terms of attribute-value matrix, displayed in the shape of box diagrams.
The research takes a theoretic-model approach to DS, but further reduces semantics to manageable proportions. By an analytical and critical review of previous theories in related areas, the dissertation first establish for itself a scaffolding of discourse semantic analysis, and then set up a framework of representation formalism. Then it supplies with language data to test the operational feasibility of such model.
In general, the research consists of three parts, which are contents, structure, and representation of discourse semantics respectively. It first accounts for the sources of discourse meaning, i.e. words and sentences; then it discusses semantic structure of discourse meaning in terms of organizational relations and discourse patterns; in the end it provides a representative formalism for the former two parts.
A language item stands for a correspondence between form and meaning, with inevitable constraints between the two sides. Such constraints give indication to the direction and the manner of how to process such an item in a discourse: either to enhance the previous information unit by projecting the new information on it if the constraints are closely related, or to suppress the previous information if the constraints are opposite, or to establish a new information unit if the constraints are irrelevant. Constraints in discourse semantic contents and structure are analyzed in four levels.
1. Information and properties beneath the clause level. Information and properties which contribute to discourse semantics in this level are in three categories: 1) the independent procedural information, 2) forms of phrases and their accessibility, and 3) functions of key words in facilitating interpretation of other language items and in forming inference by activating a situational frame.
2. Information and properties at the clause level. Clauses constitutes the basic units of discourse meaning. Semantic analyses of clauses in discourse are carried out in three stages: 1) argument structure analysis, to get the basic information of its conceptual meaning and logical structure, 2) information structure analysis, to capture properties of information distribution within the clauses, and 3) construction analysis, to include the constructional meaning of the clause as a whole.
3. Information and properties of inter-clausal relations. Clause relations in nature are semantics relations, which are classified into two categories according to the surface linguistic expressions: 1) clause relations with linguistic signals and 2) those without. For the former, there are two types: i) those connected with connectives and ii) those connected by grammatical structures. For the latter, clauses are connected by forming inference.
4. Information and properties of discourse as a whole. Discourse patterns are conventional constructions, also with correspondence between the function and form of discourse, which are analyzed in terms of genres and text types respectively. This section puts particular emphasis on the holistic features and functions of discourse. Among the four levels, the first two belong to the contents of discourse semantic analysis, while the latter two are the structure of discourse semantic analysis. Those two categories constitute the linguistic entities of discourse analysis, thus forming one unified respect of DS in this model.
The other respect in the model is the representational mechanism, i.e. formalism of DS. The model describes semantic entities and relations in DS in terms of feature structures, which take the shape of (embedded) box diagrams.
The research proves that we can establish an integrated and holistic framework to account for the analysis and representation of DS according to constraints between form and meaning. On one hand, it not only simulates the procedure of building up meaning from words, sentences, till to discourse in the bottom-up way, but also accounts for the functions and properties of discourse against its components in the top-down way. On the other hand, it incorporates the analytical procedure into a representational formalism, thus giving a full description to discourse semantic processing.
The research also has some limitations. The approach is fundamentally a retrospective one, in that it first sets up a theoretical model and then support with language facts to prove it. Naturally, it calls for more language data to test the feasibility of such a model in natural language processing and then to improve or amend it. Besides, during analysis the language data are not distinguished between English and Chinese, but they may be very different in nature. As a tentative attempt to develop a representative formalism for DS, much of it is rather crude, and in need of fine elaboration in future research.
引文
Ariel, M. (1985a) Givenness marking [D]. Ph.D. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.
Ariel, M. (1985b) The discourse functions of Given information [J]. Theoretical Linguistics, (12), 99–113.
Ariel, M. (1988) Referring and accessibility [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (24), 65–87.
Ariel, M. (1990) Accessing noun phrase antecedents [M]. London: Routledge.
Ariel, M. (2001) Accessibility theory: overview [A]. In Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J. & Spooren, W. (eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 27– 87.
Ariel, M. (2006) Accessibility Theory [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 1 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. pp. 15– 18.
Ariel, M. (2009) Discourse, grammar, discourse [J]. Discourse Studies, 11(1): 5-36.
Asher, N. (1998) Discourse semantics [A]. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0 [K/CD]. London/New York: Routledge.
Ballard, D. L., Conrad, R. J. & Longacre, R. E. (1971) The deep and surface grammar of interclausal relations [J]. Foundations of Language, (7): 70–118.
Bateman, J. & Delin, J. (2006) Rhetorical Structure Theory [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 10 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 589-597.
Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Beekman, J. (1970). Propositions and their relations within a discourse [J]. Notes on Translation, (37): 6–23.
Beekman, J. & Callow, J. (1974) Translating the Word of God [M]. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993) Analyzing Genre [M]. London: Longman Group UK Ltd.
Bhatia, V. K. (2009) Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (1989) A Typology of English Texts [J]. Linguistics, 27 (1): 3-34.
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1986). An initial typology of English text types [A]. In Aarts, J. & Meijs, W. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics II: New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.
Bierwisch, M. (1965) Poetik und Linguistik [A]. In Helmut, K. & Gunzenh?user, R. (eds.), Mathematik und Dichtung [C]. München: Nymphenburger. 49-66.
Blakemore, D. (1987) Semantic constraints on relevance [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992) Understanding Utterances [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and pragmatics of
discourse markers [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language [M]. New York: Holt.
Bower, G. H. (1974) Selective facilitation and interference in retention of prose [J]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 1-8.
Britton, B. K. & Graesser, A. C. (1996) Models of understanding text [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983/2000) Discourse analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Callow, K. & Callow, J. (1992) Text as purposive communication: a meaning-based analysis [A]. In Mann & Thompson (eds.). pp. 5–37.
Chafe, W. (1976) Givenness, constrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view [A]. In Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and Topic [C]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 159-81.
Chafe, W. (1979) Language and Consciousness [J]. Language, 50: 111-133.
Chafe, W. (1980a) The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of Narrative [A]. In Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp. 9-50.
Chafe, W. (1980b) The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, W. (1987) Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow [A]. In Tomlin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 21-51.
Chafe, W. (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chang, N., Narayanan, S. & Petruck, M. R. L. (2002) Putting Frames in Perspective [A].
COLING’02 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics, Vol. 1 [C]. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (1997) Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in theWorkplace and School [M]. London: Cassell.
Christie, F., Martin, J. R. & Rothery, J. (1989) Genres Make Meaning: Another Reply to Sawyer and Watson [J]. English in Australia, (90).
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic structures [M]. Mouton: The Hague.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1970) Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic interpretation [A]. In Kawamoto, R. J. S. (ed.), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics [C]. Tokyo: TEC Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding [M]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use [M]. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. E. (1974) Psychological Processes as Linguistic Explanation [A]. In Cohen, D. (ed.), Explaining Linguistic Phenomena [C]. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. pp. 91-124.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crombie, W. (1985a) Discourse and language learning: a relational approach to syllabus design [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crombie, W. (1985b) Process and relation in discourse and language learning [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics [K]. London: Andre Deutsch.
Dahl, ?. (1969) Topic and Comment: a Study in Russian and Transformational Grammar [M]. Stockholm: Almquvist and Wiksell.
Dahl, ?. (1974) Topic-Comment Structure in a Generative Grammar with a Semantic Base [A]. In Dane?, F. (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 75-80.
Dane?, F. (1974) Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text [A]. In Dane?, F. (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 106-28.
Dane?, F. (ed.) (1974) Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. The Hague: Mouton.
Davis, T. (1996) Linking and Lexical Semantics in the Hierarchical Lexicon [D]. PhD Diss., Stanford University.
den Ouden, J. N. (2004) Prosodic Realizations of Text Structure [D]. Ph.D. diss., TilburgUniversity.
Dik, S. (1978) Functional Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dik, S. (1989) The Theory of Functional Grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dik, S., Hoffman, M. E., Jong, J. R. de, Djiang, S. I., Stroomer, H., & Vries, L. de. (1981) On the Typology of Focus Phenomenon [A]. In Hoekstra, T., H. van der Hulst & M. Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on Functional Grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Foris, 41-74.
Dirven, R. & Radden, G. (eds.) (1987) Fillmore's Case Grammar: A Reader [C]. Heidelberg: Groos.
Dooley, R. A. & Levinsohn, S. H. (2007/2008) Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; SIL International.
Dowty, D. (1989) On the Semantic Content of the Notion of Thematic Role [A]. In Chierchia, P. & Turner, R. (eds.), Property, Types and Meaning, Vol. II [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwen. pp. 69-130.
Dowty, D. (1991) Thematic Proto-Poles and Argument Selection [J]. language, 67(3): 547-619.
Du Bois, J. W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse [A]. In Chafe, W. L. (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production [C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. pp. 203-73.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. (2007) Information Structure: the Syntax-Discourse Interface [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2000) Discourse, Social Theory and Social Research: The Discourse of Welfare Reform [J]. Journal of Sociolinguistics, (4).
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research [M]. London: Routledge.
Fauconnier, G. (1994) Mental Spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fauconnier , G. (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Fawcett, R. P. (1980) Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicating Mind [M]. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Fawcett, R. P. (2000) A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics [M].Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fawcett, R. P., Mije, A. van der, & Wissen, C. van. (1988) Towards a systemic flowchart model for local discourse structure [A]. In Fawcett, R. P. & Young, D. J. (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. Vol. 2 [C]. London: Frances Pinter. pp. 116-43.
Fillmore, C. J. (1966) Deictic Categories in the semantics of come [J]. Foundations of Language, (2): 219-27.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968) The case for case [A]. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. pp. 1-88.
Fillmore, C. J. (1969) Towards a Modern Theory of Case [A]. In Reibel, D. & Shane, S., (eds.), Modern Studies in English [C]. Englewood Cliff. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. pp. 361 - 175.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971a) Some problems for case grammar [A]. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguisies 1971 [C]. Washington, D.C.: Georgerown University Press. 35 - 56.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971b) Towards a theory of deixis [J]. The PCCLLU Papers, 3.4, 219-41.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971c) Verbs of judging [A]. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendon, D. T. (eds.), Studies in Linguistics Semantics [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 273-90.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis [M]. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977) The case for case reopened [A]. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 8 [C]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 59-81.
Fillmore, C. J. (1981) Pragmatics and the description of discourse [A]. In. Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press. 143-66.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982a) Frame Semantics [A]. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C]. Seoul: Hanshin: 111– 37.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982b) Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis [A]. In Jaravella, R. J. & Klein, W. (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action. Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. London/New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 31-59.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica 6, 222–254.
Fillmore, C. J. (1988) The mechanisms of construction grammar [A]. In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. & Singmaster H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, L.A. pp. 35 - 55.
Fillmore, C. J. (2006) Frame Semantics [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Languageand Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd: 601-8.
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1993) Construction Grammar coursebook. Manuscript, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1997) Construction Grammar Lecture Notes [OL]. ms. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec02.html.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: the case of Let alone [J]. Language, 64(3): 501-538.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., Michaelis, L. A., & Sag, I. A. (2003) Construction Grammar [M]. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Firbas, J. (1964) On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis [J]. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 1/64: 267-280.
Firbas, J. (1971) On the concept of Communicative Dynamism in the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective [J]. Sbornik pracífilosofickéfakulti brnenskéuniversiti A, 19/71: 135-44.
Firbas, J. (1989) Degrees of Communicative Dynamism and Degrees of Prosodic Prominence [J]. Brno Studies in English, (18): 21-66.
Firbas, J. (1992) Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foolen, A. & van der Leek, F. (eds.). (2000). Constructions in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fox, A. A. (1987) Discourse Structure and Anaphora in Written and Conversational English [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. (1992) An approach to discourse markers [J]. Journal of pragmatics, (14): 383-395
Frege, G. (1884) Foundations of arithmetic (2nd rev. edn., 1978) [M]. Austin, J. L. (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fried, M. & Boas, H. C. (eds.) (2005) Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish Company.
Fried, M. & ?stman, J.-O. (2004) Construction Grammar: a Thumbnail Sketch [A]. In Fried, M. & ?stman, J.-O. (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish Company.
Fries, P. H. (1981) On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse [J]. Forum Linguisticum, 6(1): 1-38.
Fries, P. H. (1995) Themes, methods of development, and texts [A]. In Hasan, R. & Fries, P. H. (eds.), On subject and theme: a discourse functional perspective [C]. Amsterdam:Benjamins. 317-359.
Fries, P.H. and G. Francis (1992) Exploring theme: problems for research [J]. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, (6): 45-59.
Gee, J. P. (1999/2000) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. London: Routledge. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990) Language Comprehension as Structure Building [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993) Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms [J]. Psychological Science, (4).
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Givón, T. (1995) Coherence in Spontaneous Text [M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Kaschak, M. (2006) Discourse Processing [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Construction of Society: Outline of he Theory of Structuration [M]. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Givón, T. (1983) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross Language Study [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1989) Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A. (2003) Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language [J]. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5): 219-224.
Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodenough, C. (1983) A Psycholinguistic Investigation of Theme and Information Focus [D]. PhD Diss., University of Toronto.
Graesser, A. C. (1981) Prose comprehension beyond the word [M]. New York: Springer Verlag.
Graesser, A. C., M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman. (1997) Cognition [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process [C]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd,.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension [J]. Psychological Review, (101): 371-95.
Greimas, A. (1966) Sémantique Structurale: Recherches de Méthode [M]. Paris: Larousse.
Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and Conversation [A]. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntaxand Semantics (Vol. 3): Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press.
Grimes, J. (1975) The thread of discourse [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument structure [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Gruber, J. (1964/1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Gruber, J. (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Gundel, J. K. (1974) The Role of Topic-Comment in Linguistic Theory [D]. PhD. Diss., University of Texas, Austin.
Gundel, J. K. (1988) The Role of Topic-Comment in Linguistic Theory [M]. New York: Garland.
Hajicovà, E. (1984) Topic and Focus. In Sgall, P. (ed.), Contributions to Functional Syntax, Semantics, and Language Comprehension [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 189-202.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967a) Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part 1) [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (3): 37-81.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967b) Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part 2) [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (3): 199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London :Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976) Theme and Information in the English Clause [A]. In Kress, G. (ed.), Halliday: System and Function in Language [C]. London: Oxford University Press. pp. 174-88.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An introduction to functional grammar [M]. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Fawcett, R. P. (eds.) (1987) New Development in Systemic Grammar: Theory and Description [C]. London: Frances Pinter.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985[1989]) Language Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective [M]. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (1984/1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halmari, H. & ?stman, J.-O. (2001) The Soft-Spoken, Angelic Pickax Killer: the Notion of Discourse Pattern in Conversational News Reporting [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6): 805-23.
Halmari, H. & Virtanen, T. (eds.) (2005) Persuasion across genres [C]. Amsterdam &Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Hatim, B. (2001) Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (2001) Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Haviland, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1974) What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, (13): 512-521.
Heim, I. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [D]. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts. / Amherst. 1989. New York: Garland.
Heim, I. (1983) File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness [A]. In B?uerle, R., Schwarze, C., & Stechow, A. von (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language [C]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hinds, J., Maynard, S. K. & Iwasake, S. (eds.) (1987) Perspectives on Topicalization: the Case of Japanese‘wa’[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hintzman, D, L, (1986)“Schema-abstraction”in a multiple trace model [J]. Psychological Review, (93), 411–428.
Hobbs, J. R. (1979) Coherence and coreference [J]. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90.
Hoey, M. P. (1983) On the surface of discourse [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin. Hoey, M. P. (1986) The discourse colony: a preliminary study of a neglected discourse type [A]. In Coulthard, R. M. (ed.), Talking about Text [C]. Discourse Analysis Monograph 13, English Language Research, University of Birmingham, 1–26.
Hoey, M. P. (2001) Textual Interaction [M]. London: Routledge.
Hoey, M. P. (2006) Clause Relations [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 2 [K]. Elsevier Ltd, 474– 481.
Hoey, M. P. & Winter, E. O. (1982) Believe me for mine honour: a stylistic analysis of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Antony at Caesar’s funeral in Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2, from the point of view of discourse construction [J]. Language & Style, 14(4): 315–339.
Hoey, M. P. & Winter, E. O. (1986) Clause relations and the writer’s communicative task [A]. In Couture, B. (ed.) Functional approaches to writing: research perspectives [C]. London: Frances Pinter, 120–141.
Hovy, E. H. (1990) Parsimonious and profligate approaches to the question of discourse structure relations [A]. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation [C]. Pittsburgh.
Huddleston, R., Hudson, R., Winter, E. & Henrici, A. (1968) Sentence and clause in scientific English, report of the research project‘The Linguistic Properties of Scientific English [R]. Unpublished report, Department of General Linguistics, University College London.
Iten, C. (1997) Because and although: A case of duality? [J] UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, (9): 55-76.
Iten, C. (1998) The meaning of although: A relevance theoretic account [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, (10): 81-108.
Iten, C. (2000)‘Non-truth conditional’meaning, relevance and concessives [D]. Ph.D. Diss, University of London.
Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar [M]. London: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1983) Semantics and Cognition [M]. London: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1987) The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, (18)3:369-411.
Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic structures [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1996) Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguistics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 93–129.
Jones, L. K. (1977) Theme in Expository English [M]. Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter Press.
Jordan M P (1984). Rhetoric of everyday English texts [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Jordan, M. P. (1988) Some advances in clause relational theory [A]. In Benson, J. D. & Greaves, W. S. (eds.), Systemic Functional Approaches to Discourse [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 282–301.
Jordan, M. P. (1990) Clause relations within the anaphoric nominal group. In Jordan, M. P. (ed.), The 16th LACUS forum [C]. Lake Bluff, IL: LACUS. 409–419.
Jordan, M. P. (1992) An integrated three-pronged analysis of a fund-raising letter [A]. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 171–226.
Jose, M. & Marco, L. Procedural Vocabulary: Lexical Signaling of Conceptual Relations in Discourse [J]. Applied linguistics, 1999: 1 - 21.
Kamp, H. (1981) A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation [A]. In Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., & Stokhof, M. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part I [C]. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. 277-322.
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic [M]. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963) The Structure of a Semantic Theory [J]. Language, 39(2): 170-210. (Reprinted in Rosenberg, J. F. & Travis, C. (eds.) (1971) Readings in the Philosophy of Language [C]. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. pp. 472-514)
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964) An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kay, P. (2002) An Informal Sketch of a Formal Architecture for Construction Grammar [J]. Grammars, Vol. 5, No. 1: 1-16.
Kay, P. (2005) Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction [A]. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish Company.
Kay, P. (To appear) The Limits of Construction Grammar [A]. In Trousdale, G. & T. Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar [C]. Oxford University Press.
Kehler, A. (2002) Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar [M]. CSLI Publications.
Kehler, A. (2004) Discourse Coherence [A]. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kehler, A. & Ward. G. (2004) Constraints on Ellipsis and Event Reference [A]. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008) Coherence and Coreference Revisited [J]. Journal of Semantics (Special Issue on Processing Meaning), 25(1): 1-44.
Kintsch, W. (1974) The representation of meaning in memory [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W. (1988) The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction- integration model [J]. Psychological Review, 95 (2): 163– 82.
Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. (1978) Toward a Model of Text Comprehension and Production [J]. Psychological Review, 85: 363-394.
Kiparsky, P. (1988) Agreement and Linking Theory [M]. Standford University.
Klinge, A. The English Modal Auxiliaries: from Lexical Semantics to Utterance Interpretation [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 1993: 315 - 357.
Knott, A. & Dale, R. (1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations [J]. Discourse Processes, (18): 35–62.
Knott, A. & Sanders, T. (1998) The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: an exploration of two languages [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 135–175.
K?nig. E. & Traugott, E. C. (1988) Pragmatic strengthening and semantic change: the conventionalizing of conversational implicature [A]. In Hüllen, W. & R. Schulze (eds.), Understanding the lexicon: meaning, sense and world knowledge in lexical semantics [C]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 110–124.
Lambrecht, K. (1981) Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard Frech [M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lambrecht, K. (1987a) Aboutness as a Cognitive Category: the Thetic-Categorical Distinction Revisited [A]. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L. & Filip, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. pp.366-82.
Lambrecht, K. (1987b) On the Status of SVO Sentences in French Discourse [A]. In Tomin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 217-61.
Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form [M]. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Cognitive models and prototype theory [A]. In Neisser, Ulric (ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization [C]. New York, Cambridge University Press. pp.63-100
Langacker, R. (1986) An introduction to cognitive grammar [J]. Cognitive Science 10, 1–40.
Langacker, R. W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford/California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford/California: Stanford University Press.
Lee, D. (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle [J]. Language, Learning & Technology, 5(3).
Longacre, R. (1972) Hierarchy and universality of discourse constituents in New Guinea languages: discussion and texts [M]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Longacre, R. (1979) The paragraph as a grammatical unit [A]. In Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax [C]. New York: Academic Press. 115–134.
Longacre, R. (1983) The Grammar of Discourse [M]. New York: Plenum Press.
Leech, G. (1981[1974]) Semantics: The Study of Meaning [M], 2nd edn [M].Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Levinsion, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1976) Subject and Topic: a New Typology of Language [A]. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic [M]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 457-89.
Longacre, R. E. (1976) An Anatomy of Speech Notions [M]. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Louwerse, M. & van Peer, W. (eds.) (2002) Thematics: interdisciplinary studies [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics, 2 vols [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995) Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse Perspectives for Language Teaching [M]. New York:Longman Publishing Company.
MacWhinney, B. (1977) Starting Points [J]. Language, 53: 152-68.
Mann, W. C. (2005) RST website [OL], available at: http://www.sfu.ca/rst. Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1986) Relational propositions in discourse [J]. Discourse Processes, (9): 57–90.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1987) Rhetorical structure theory: a theory of text organization [R]. Technical report, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization [J]. Text 8(3): 243-81.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) (1992) Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & Thompson, S. A. (1992) Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis [A]. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse Description. Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 39–78.
Marantz, A. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Marcu, D. (2000) The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization [M]. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Marcu, D. (2006) Discourse Parsing, Automatic [A]. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, E. & Tyler, L. (1982) Producing Interpretable Discourse: the Establishment and Maintenance of Reference [A]. In Jarvella, R. J. & W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action [C]. Chichester: Wiler. pp. 339-378.
Martin, J. R. (1984) Language, Register, and Genre [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1993) A Contextual theory of language [A]. In Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (eds.), The Powers of Literacy --- A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing [C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 116-136 .
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M]. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & Rothery, J. (1981) Writing Project Report No.2. Working Papers in Linguistics No.2 [R]. Linguistics Department, University of Sydney.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English [M]. London: Palgrave.
Mathesius, V. (1939) O takzvaném aktuálním ?leněnívěty. [On the So-called Actual Bipartition of the Sentence] [J]. Slovo a slovesnost, (5): 171-174.
McKnoon, G., & R. Ratcliff. (1992) Inference during reading [J]. Psychological Review, (99): 440-466.
Michaelis, L. A. (2006) Construction Grammar [A]. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Miller, C. R. (1984) Genre as social action [J]. Quaterly Journal of Speech, (70).
Miller, C. R. (1994) Rhetorical Community: the Cultural Basis of Genre [A]. In Freedman, A. & Medway, P. (eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric [C]. London: Taylor and Francis.
Minsky, M. (1974) A Framework for Representing Knowledge [A]. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo, 306, June. (Reprinted in Winston, P. (ed.) (1975), The Psychology of Computer Vision [C], McGraw-Hill.)
Mithum, M. (1987) Is Basic Word Order Universal? [A] In Tomlin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 281-328.
Muskens, R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 143– 86.
Myers, J. L. & O’Brien, E. J. (1998) Accessing the discourse representation during reading [J]. Discourse Processes, (26): 131–157.
Nicolle, S. (1997) A relevance theoretic account of be going to [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (33): 355–377.
Nicolle, S. (1998). A relevance theoretic perspective on grammaticalization [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, (9): 1–35.
Nida, E. (1975) Exploring Semantic Structure [M]. Munich: Fink.
Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. (1923) The Meaning of Meaning [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
?stman, Jan-Ola. (1999) Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns.
Focus on News Reports [A]. In Bublitz, Wolfram, et al. (eds), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 77 - 100.
?stman, Jan-Ola. (2005a) Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon [A]. In ?stman, Jan-Ola & Fried, Mirjam (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
?stman, Jan-Ola. (2005b) Persuasion as implicit anchoring: The case of collocations. [A] In Halmari, H. & Virtanen, T. (eds.), Persuasion across genres (Chapter 9) [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 183– 212.
Paltridge, B. (1996) Genre, Text Type, and the Language Learning Classroom [J]. ELT Journal, 50 (3): 237-43.
Paltridge, B. (1997) Genre, Frame, and Writing in Research Settings [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pander Maat, H. & Sanders, T. (2006) Connectives in Text [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 33– 41.
Pet?fi, J. & Rieser, H. (1973) Studies in text grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996) Frame Semantics [A]. In Verschueren, J. ?stman, J.-O., Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. 1996 Installment (13 pp.) [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Polanyi, L., Berg, M. van den & Ahn, D. (2003) Discourse Structure and Sentential Information Structure [J]. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, Vol. 12 (3). 1-16.
Pollard, C. J. & Sag, I. A. (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Prentice, J. L.(1967) Effects of Cuing Actor vs. Cuing Object on Word Order in Sentence Production [J]. Psychonomic Science, (8): 163-4.
Prince, E. F. (1981) Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 223-56.
Prince, E. (1986) On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions [J]. Parasession papers CLS, (22): 208-22.
Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1988) What to do with theta-roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Thematic Relations, Syntax and Semantics, 21. New York: Academic Press. pp. 7-36.
Redeker, G. (1990) Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (14): 367–381.
Reinhart, T. (1981) Pragmatics and Linguistics: an Analysis of Sentence Topics [J]. Philosopica, 27(1): 53-94.
Renkema, J. (1993) Discourse Studies: an Introductory Textbook [M]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Renkema, J. (2004) Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977) Understanding and Summarizing Brief Stories [A]. In LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. J. (eds.), Basic Processes in Peading: Perception and Comprehension [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 265–303.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980) Schemata: the Building Blocks of Cognition [A]. In Spiro, B., Bruce, B. C. & Brewer, W. F. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation [J]. Language, (50): 696–735.
Saeed, J. I. (1997) Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sanders, T. (1997) Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: on the categorization of coherence relations in context [J]. Discourse Processes, (24): 119–147.
Sanders, T & Pander Maat, H. (2006) Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 2 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 591 - 595.
Sanders, T. & Sanders, J. (2006) Text and Text Analysis [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Vol. 12 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Sanders, T. & Schilperoord, J. (2005) Text structure as a window on the cognition of writing; How text analysis provides insights in writing products and writing processes processes [A]. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (eds.), Handbook of Writing Research [C]. New York: Guilford Press.
Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2007) Discourse and text structure [A]. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuykens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford University Press. pp. 916-41.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations [J]. Discourse Processes, (15): 1–35.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1993) Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, (4): 93–133.
Sanders, T. & van Wijk, C. (1996) PISA --- a Procedure for Analyzing the Structure of Explanatory Texts [J]. Text, 16(1): 91-132.
Sanford, A. (2006) Coherence: Psycholinguistic Approach [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 2 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 585-591.
Sanford, A. & Garrod, S. (1980) Memory and Attention in Text Comprehension: the Problem of Reference [A]. In Nickerson, R. (ed.), Attention and Performance VIII [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1981) Understanding written language: explorations beyond the sentence [M]. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Selective processes in text understanding [A]. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics [C]. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 699–720.
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension [J]. Discourse Processes, (26): 159–190.
Saussure, F. de. (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne/Paris: Payot. [Harris, R. (trans) 1983. Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.]
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into knowledge structures [M]. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1988) Conversation Analysis. In Newmeryer, F. J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 251- 276.
Schilperoord, J. (1996) It’s about time. Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production [M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Searl, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searl, J. R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seuren, P. A. M. (1985) Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seuren, P. A. M. (2006) Discourse semantics [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Sgall, P. (1987) Prague Functionalism and Topic vs. Focus [A]. In Dirven, R. & Freid, V. (eds.), Functionalism in Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Singer, M., & Graesser, A. C. (1994) Minimal or global inference during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, (33): 421-41.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: communication and cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Srindhar, S. N. (1988) Cognition and Sentence Production: a Cross-Linguistic Study [M]. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Swales, J. M. (1981) Aspects of Article Introduction [R]. Aston ESP Research Report No. 1. The Language Studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham.
Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Acedemic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taboada, M. & Mann, W. C. (2006a) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead [J]. Discourse Studies, 8(3): 423–59.
Taboada, M. & Mann, W. C. (2006b) Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory [J]. Discourse Studies, 8(4): 567– 88.
Taylor, John R. (2004) Why Construction Grammar is radical [J]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (2): 321-348.
Tomlin, R. S. (1983) On the Interaction of Syntactic Subject, Thematic Information, and Agent in English [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (7): 411-32.
Tomlin, R. S. (1995) Focal Attention, Voice, and Word order: an Experimental, Cross-Linguistic Study [A]. In Downing, P. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Word Order in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 517-54.
Tomlin, R. S. (1997) Mapping Conceptual Representations into Linguistic Representations: the Role of Attention in Grammar [A]. In Nuyts, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.), With Language in Mind [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 162-89.
Tomlin, R. S., Forrest, L., Pu, M. M. & Kim, M. H. (1997) Discourse Semantics [A]. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed), Discourse as Structure and Process [C]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 63-111.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977) Cognitive structure in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse [J]. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
Traugott, E. C. (1988) Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization [A]. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society[C] 14, 406–416.
Traugott, E. C. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, D. & S. Wight (eds.) Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31–54.
Vachek, J. (ed.) (1966) The Linguistic School of Prague: an Introduction to its Theory and Practice [C]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Vallduví, E. (1992) The Information Component. New York: Carland.
van der Pool, E. (1995) Writing as a conceptual process. A text-analytical study of developmental aspects [D]. Ph.D. diss., Tilburg University.
van Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. A study in theoretical linguistics and poetics [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977) Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse [M]. New York: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1980) Macrostructures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
van Dijk, T. A. (1985a) Semantic Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol 2: Dimensions of discourse. London: Academic Press. pp. 103 – 37.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed) (1985b) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
van Wijk, C. & Sanders, T. (1999) Identifying writing strategies through text analysis [J]. Written Communication, (1): 52–76.
von Heusinger, K. (1999) Intonation and Information Structure [D]. PhD diss., University of Konstanz.
Ventola, E. (1984) Orientation to Social Semiotics in Foreign Language Teaching. Applied Linguistcs, (5).
Ventola, E. (1987) The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter.
Ventola, E. (1989) Problems of Modeling and Applied Issues within the Framework of Genre. Word, (40, 1-2).
Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1990) On the control of inferences in discourse understanding [A]. In Balota, D. A., d'Arcais, G. B. F., & Rayner, K. (eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 447-464.
Weil, H. (1887) The Order of Words in the Ancient Languages Compared with that of the Modern Languages (1844) (trans. C. Super), 3rd edn. Boston: Ginn.
Werlich, E. (1976) A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Werlich, E (1982) A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.
Wilensky, R. (1983) Story grammars and story points [J]. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 6, 579–623.
Williams, E. (1981) Argument Structure and Morphology [J]. The Linguistic Review, (1): 81-114.
Wilson, D. (1998) Discourse, coherence and relevance: A reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (29): 57-74.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993) Linguistic form and relevance [J]. Lingua, (90): 1-25.
Winter, E. (1971) Connection in science material: a proposition about the semantics of clause relations [A]. In Science and technology in a second language: papers from a seminar held at the University of Birmingham from 27th to 29th March 1971 [C]. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. pp. 41–52.
Winter, E. (1979). Replacement as a fundamental function of the sentence in context [J]. Forum Linguisticum, (4): 95–133.
Winter, E. (1982) Towards a Contextual Grammar of English [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Winter, E. (1986) Clause relations as information structure: two basic text structures in English [A]. In Coulthard, M. (eds.), Talking about Text: studies presented to David Brazil on his retirement [C]. Birmingham: English Language Research. 88–108.
Winter, E. (1992) The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analysing the information of a fund-raising letter [A]. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse Description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131–170.
Winter, E. (1994) Clause relations as information structure: two basic text structures in English (revised reprint) [A]. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in written text analysis [C]. London: Routledge. 46–68.
Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (2009) Doing Discourse Analysis [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C. & Graesser, A. C. (1995) The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: an event-indexing model [J]. Psychological Science, (6): 292–297.
Zwaan, R. A. & Radvansky, G. A. (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory [J]. Psychological Bulletin, (123): 162–185.
彼得·哈克[美]. (1988)语义整体论:弗雷格与维特根斯坦[A].牟博译.见:涂纪亮(主编),语言哲学名著选读[C].北京:三联书店.
布龙菲尔德,伦纳德[美]. (2006)语言科学的一套共设[A].雄兵译.见:布龙菲尔德语言学文集[C].长沙:湖南教育出版社. (原载: Bloomfield, L. (1926) A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language [J]. Language, (2): 153–164)
陈虎. (2003)语言信息结构及其多视角研究述评[J].解放军外国语学院学报,(5): 1-8.
陈敏. (2003)受话·旁听·窃听——话剧《原野》中闻者角色的语用解读[J].外语学刊, (2): 11-15.
陈忠华.话语宏观结构及其宏观操作[J].解放军外语学院学报,1994, (5).
陈忠华,管新平.话语宏观结构的认知心理学理据[J].外语研究, 1999, (4).
程琪龙. (1995)试论Fillmore格语法1971模式[J].解放军外语学院学报, (6): 16– 20.
丁声树等. (1961)现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆.
董敏. (2002)语篇连接词的认知语义及其语义限制[J].四川外语学院学报, (6): 97-101.
杜金榜. (2009)论语篇中的信息流动[J].外国语, (3): 36– 43.
菲尔墨. (2002[1980])“格”辨.胡明扬译.北京:商务印书馆。[原载1980,《语言学译丛》第二辑。北京:中国社会科学出版社。1 - 117页。]
菲尔墨. (2003)框架语义学[A]。詹卫东译.《语言学论丛》第二十七辑[C]。北京:商务印书馆。382 - 412页。
弗雷格著,王路译.(1998)算术基础[M].北京:商务印书馆.
傅雨贤等. (1997)现代汉语介词研究[M].广州:中山大学出版社.
高明乐. (2003)题元角色与题元角色理论[J].现代外语,(2): 211-218.
何自然,冉永平. (1999)话语联系语的语用制约性[J].外语教学与研究, (3):1-8.
胡曙中. (2004)现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
胡曙中. (2005)英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄衍. (1985)试论英语主位和述位[J].外国语, (5): 32-26+.
姜望琪. (2008a) Firth的语篇语义学思想[J].外国语言文学, (1): 1– 8.
姜望琪. (2008b) Martin的语篇语义学思想[J].北京科技大学学报, (4),95– 104.
姜望琪. (2009)语篇语义学与评价系统[J].外语教学, (2): 1– 8.
秦洪武,崔蓉. (2009)事件共指与话语连贯[J].当代语言学, (1): 10– 20.
李丛禾. (2003)关联推导中的程序性意义探析[J].外语教学, (5): 1– 7.
李临定. (1990)现代汉语动词[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
李美霞. (2007)话语类型研究[M].北京:科学出版社.
李佐文. (2003)话语联系语对连贯关系的标示[J].山东外语教学, (1): 32-36.
李勇忠,李春华. (2004)框架转换与意义建构[J].外语学刊, (3): 24-29.
李悦娥,范宏雅. (2002)话语分析[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
刘辰诞. (2001)教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
刘润清. (1995)西方语言学流派[M] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
刘宇红. (2010)生成语法中题元理论的批评性研究[J].外国语言文学, (2): 92– 97.
鲁川. (1991)动词谓语框架[J].汉语学习, (4).
吕叔湘. (1942)中国文法要略[M].重庆:商务印书馆.
孟琮等. (1987)动词用法辞典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社.
钱敏汝. (1988a)戴伊克的话语宏观结构论(上)[J].国外语言学,(2).
钱敏汝. (1988b)戴伊克的话语宏观结构论(下)[J].国外语言学,(3).
钱敏汝(2001)篇章语用学概论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
秦秀白. (2000)体裁教学法述评[J].外语教学与研究, (1): 42– 47.
屈承熹著;潘文国等译. (2006)汉语篇章语法[M].北京:北京语言大学出版社.
沈家煊. (2006)概念整合与浮现意义[J].修辞学习, (5): 1-4.
唐青叶. (2009)语篇语言学[M].上海:上海大学出版社.
田海龙. (2009)语篇研究:范畴、视角、方法[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王汉平,李庆新. (2007)语义与语篇理解——谈单句语篇中关键词的语篇功能[J].双语学习, (6): 127-128+.
王惠. (2005)从构式语法理论看汉语词义研究[J].中文计算语言学刊(台湾), 10(4): 475-507.
王寅. (2007)认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王义娜. (2003)话语指称的认知构建与心理空间可及性[J].外国语, (5): 35– 42.
王振华. (2009)语篇语义的研究路径——一个范式、两个脉络、三种功能、四种语义、五个视角[J].中国外语, (6): 26– 38.
卫真道(美)著.徐赳赳译. (2002)篇章语言学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
维特根斯坦. (1983)逻辑哲学论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
维特根斯坦. (1992)哲学研究[M].上海:上海三联书店.
维特根斯坦著,涂纪亮译. (2003)蓝皮书和褐皮书[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社.
肖云枢. (2001)概念信息与程序信息[M].外语学刊,(3): 7-13.
熊学亮.话语的宏观结构[J].外语教学与研究, 1996, (1).
徐烈炯. (1995 [1990])语义学(第二版)[M].北京:语文出版社。
徐盛桓. (1982)主位和述位[J].外语教学与研究, (1): 1-9.
许余龙. (2000)英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J].外语教学与研究, (5): 321– 28.
许余龙. (2002)语篇回指的认知语言学探索[J].外国语, (1): 28– 37.
许余龙. (2003)语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证[J].外国语, (2): 17– 24.
杨家勤,张允. (2010)句际关系视角下主位推进模式的语篇建构功能[J].北京第二外国语学院学报, (6): 38-44+.
杨家勤. (2011)话语生产者角色及其转换背后的意识操纵[J].东北师大学报, (1): 135-138.
叶枫. (2010)动态会话中的受话者话语角色分析[J].南阳师范学院学报, (10): 111-115+.
俞东明. (1996)话语角色类型及其在言语交际中的转换[J].外国语, (1): 19-22.
张德禄,刘汝山. (2003)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.
张发祥,康立新,赵文超. (2009)话语分析:理论与案例[M].北京:科学出版社.
张今,张克定. (1998)英汉语信息结构对比研究[M].开封:河南大学出版社.
朱永生. (2001)英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生,严世清. (2001)系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
Ariel, M. (1985b) The discourse functions of Given information [J]. Theoretical Linguistics, (12), 99–113.
Ariel, M. (1988) Referring and accessibility [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (24), 65–87.
Ariel, M. (1990) Accessing noun phrase antecedents [M]. London: Routledge.
Ariel, M. (2001) Accessibility theory: overview [A]. In Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J. & Spooren, W. (eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 27– 87.
Ariel, M. (2006) Accessibility Theory [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 1 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. pp. 15– 18.
Ariel, M. (2009) Discourse, grammar, discourse [J]. Discourse Studies, 11(1): 5-36.
Asher, N. (1998) Discourse semantics [A]. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0 [K/CD]. London/New York: Routledge.
Ballard, D. L., Conrad, R. J. & Longacre, R. E. (1971) The deep and surface grammar of interclausal relations [J]. Foundations of Language, (7): 70–118.
Bateman, J. & Delin, J. (2006) Rhetorical Structure Theory [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 10 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 589-597.
Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Beekman, J. (1970). Propositions and their relations within a discourse [J]. Notes on Translation, (37): 6–23.
Beekman, J. & Callow, J. (1974) Translating the Word of God [M]. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993) Analyzing Genre [M]. London: Longman Group UK Ltd.
Bhatia, V. K. (2009) Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (1989) A Typology of English Texts [J]. Linguistics, 27 (1): 3-34.
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1986). An initial typology of English text types [A]. In Aarts, J. & Meijs, W. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics II: New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.
Bierwisch, M. (1965) Poetik und Linguistik [A]. In Helmut, K. & Gunzenh?user, R. (eds.), Mathematik und Dichtung [C]. München: Nymphenburger. 49-66.
Blakemore, D. (1987) Semantic constraints on relevance [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992) Understanding Utterances [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and pragmatics of
discourse markers [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language [M]. New York: Holt.
Bower, G. H. (1974) Selective facilitation and interference in retention of prose [J]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 1-8.
Britton, B. K. & Graesser, A. C. (1996) Models of understanding text [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983/2000) Discourse analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Callow, K. & Callow, J. (1992) Text as purposive communication: a meaning-based analysis [A]. In Mann & Thompson (eds.). pp. 5–37.
Chafe, W. (1976) Givenness, constrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view [A]. In Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and Topic [C]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 159-81.
Chafe, W. (1979) Language and Consciousness [J]. Language, 50: 111-133.
Chafe, W. (1980a) The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of Narrative [A]. In Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp. 9-50.
Chafe, W. (1980b) The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, W. (1987) Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow [A]. In Tomlin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 21-51.
Chafe, W. (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chang, N., Narayanan, S. & Petruck, M. R. L. (2002) Putting Frames in Perspective [A].
COLING’02 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics, Vol. 1 [C]. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (1997) Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in theWorkplace and School [M]. London: Cassell.
Christie, F., Martin, J. R. & Rothery, J. (1989) Genres Make Meaning: Another Reply to Sawyer and Watson [J]. English in Australia, (90).
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic structures [M]. Mouton: The Hague.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1970) Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic interpretation [A]. In Kawamoto, R. J. S. (ed.), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics [C]. Tokyo: TEC Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding [M]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use [M]. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. E. (1974) Psychological Processes as Linguistic Explanation [A]. In Cohen, D. (ed.), Explaining Linguistic Phenomena [C]. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. pp. 91-124.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crombie, W. (1985a) Discourse and language learning: a relational approach to syllabus design [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crombie, W. (1985b) Process and relation in discourse and language learning [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics [K]. London: Andre Deutsch.
Dahl, ?. (1969) Topic and Comment: a Study in Russian and Transformational Grammar [M]. Stockholm: Almquvist and Wiksell.
Dahl, ?. (1974) Topic-Comment Structure in a Generative Grammar with a Semantic Base [A]. In Dane?, F. (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 75-80.
Dane?, F. (1974) Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text [A]. In Dane?, F. (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 106-28.
Dane?, F. (ed.) (1974) Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. The Hague: Mouton.
Davis, T. (1996) Linking and Lexical Semantics in the Hierarchical Lexicon [D]. PhD Diss., Stanford University.
den Ouden, J. N. (2004) Prosodic Realizations of Text Structure [D]. Ph.D. diss., TilburgUniversity.
Dik, S. (1978) Functional Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dik, S. (1989) The Theory of Functional Grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dik, S., Hoffman, M. E., Jong, J. R. de, Djiang, S. I., Stroomer, H., & Vries, L. de. (1981) On the Typology of Focus Phenomenon [A]. In Hoekstra, T., H. van der Hulst & M. Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on Functional Grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Foris, 41-74.
Dirven, R. & Radden, G. (eds.) (1987) Fillmore's Case Grammar: A Reader [C]. Heidelberg: Groos.
Dooley, R. A. & Levinsohn, S. H. (2007/2008) Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; SIL International.
Dowty, D. (1989) On the Semantic Content of the Notion of Thematic Role [A]. In Chierchia, P. & Turner, R. (eds.), Property, Types and Meaning, Vol. II [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwen. pp. 69-130.
Dowty, D. (1991) Thematic Proto-Poles and Argument Selection [J]. language, 67(3): 547-619.
Du Bois, J. W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse [A]. In Chafe, W. L. (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production [C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. pp. 203-73.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. (2007) Information Structure: the Syntax-Discourse Interface [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2000) Discourse, Social Theory and Social Research: The Discourse of Welfare Reform [J]. Journal of Sociolinguistics, (4).
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research [M]. London: Routledge.
Fauconnier, G. (1994) Mental Spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fauconnier , G. (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Fawcett, R. P. (1980) Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicating Mind [M]. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Fawcett, R. P. (2000) A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics [M].Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fawcett, R. P., Mije, A. van der, & Wissen, C. van. (1988) Towards a systemic flowchart model for local discourse structure [A]. In Fawcett, R. P. & Young, D. J. (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. Vol. 2 [C]. London: Frances Pinter. pp. 116-43.
Fillmore, C. J. (1966) Deictic Categories in the semantics of come [J]. Foundations of Language, (2): 219-27.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968) The case for case [A]. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. pp. 1-88.
Fillmore, C. J. (1969) Towards a Modern Theory of Case [A]. In Reibel, D. & Shane, S., (eds.), Modern Studies in English [C]. Englewood Cliff. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. pp. 361 - 175.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971a) Some problems for case grammar [A]. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguisies 1971 [C]. Washington, D.C.: Georgerown University Press. 35 - 56.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971b) Towards a theory of deixis [J]. The PCCLLU Papers, 3.4, 219-41.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971c) Verbs of judging [A]. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendon, D. T. (eds.), Studies in Linguistics Semantics [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 273-90.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis [M]. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977) The case for case reopened [A]. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 8 [C]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 59-81.
Fillmore, C. J. (1981) Pragmatics and the description of discourse [A]. In. Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press. 143-66.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982a) Frame Semantics [A]. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C]. Seoul: Hanshin: 111– 37.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982b) Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis [A]. In Jaravella, R. J. & Klein, W. (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action. Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. London/New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 31-59.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica 6, 222–254.
Fillmore, C. J. (1988) The mechanisms of construction grammar [A]. In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. & Singmaster H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, L.A. pp. 35 - 55.
Fillmore, C. J. (2006) Frame Semantics [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Languageand Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd: 601-8.
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1993) Construction Grammar coursebook. Manuscript, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1997) Construction Grammar Lecture Notes [OL]. ms. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec02.html.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: the case of Let alone [J]. Language, 64(3): 501-538.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., Michaelis, L. A., & Sag, I. A. (2003) Construction Grammar [M]. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Firbas, J. (1964) On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis [J]. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 1/64: 267-280.
Firbas, J. (1971) On the concept of Communicative Dynamism in the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective [J]. Sbornik pracífilosofickéfakulti brnenskéuniversiti A, 19/71: 135-44.
Firbas, J. (1989) Degrees of Communicative Dynamism and Degrees of Prosodic Prominence [J]. Brno Studies in English, (18): 21-66.
Firbas, J. (1992) Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foolen, A. & van der Leek, F. (eds.). (2000). Constructions in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fox, A. A. (1987) Discourse Structure and Anaphora in Written and Conversational English [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. (1992) An approach to discourse markers [J]. Journal of pragmatics, (14): 383-395
Frege, G. (1884) Foundations of arithmetic (2nd rev. edn., 1978) [M]. Austin, J. L. (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fried, M. & Boas, H. C. (eds.) (2005) Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish Company.
Fried, M. & ?stman, J.-O. (2004) Construction Grammar: a Thumbnail Sketch [A]. In Fried, M. & ?stman, J.-O. (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish Company.
Fries, P. H. (1981) On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse [J]. Forum Linguisticum, 6(1): 1-38.
Fries, P. H. (1995) Themes, methods of development, and texts [A]. In Hasan, R. & Fries, P. H. (eds.), On subject and theme: a discourse functional perspective [C]. Amsterdam:Benjamins. 317-359.
Fries, P.H. and G. Francis (1992) Exploring theme: problems for research [J]. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, (6): 45-59.
Gee, J. P. (1999/2000) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. London: Routledge. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990) Language Comprehension as Structure Building [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993) Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms [J]. Psychological Science, (4).
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Givón, T. (1995) Coherence in Spontaneous Text [M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Kaschak, M. (2006) Discourse Processing [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Construction of Society: Outline of he Theory of Structuration [M]. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Givón, T. (1983) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross Language Study [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1989) Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A. (2003) Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language [J]. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5): 219-224.
Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodenough, C. (1983) A Psycholinguistic Investigation of Theme and Information Focus [D]. PhD Diss., University of Toronto.
Graesser, A. C. (1981) Prose comprehension beyond the word [M]. New York: Springer Verlag.
Graesser, A. C., M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman. (1997) Cognition [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process [C]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd,.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension [J]. Psychological Review, (101): 371-95.
Greimas, A. (1966) Sémantique Structurale: Recherches de Méthode [M]. Paris: Larousse.
Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and Conversation [A]. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntaxand Semantics (Vol. 3): Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press.
Grimes, J. (1975) The thread of discourse [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument structure [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Gruber, J. (1964/1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics [M]. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Gruber, J. (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Gundel, J. K. (1974) The Role of Topic-Comment in Linguistic Theory [D]. PhD. Diss., University of Texas, Austin.
Gundel, J. K. (1988) The Role of Topic-Comment in Linguistic Theory [M]. New York: Garland.
Hajicovà, E. (1984) Topic and Focus. In Sgall, P. (ed.), Contributions to Functional Syntax, Semantics, and Language Comprehension [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 189-202.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967a) Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part 1) [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (3): 37-81.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967b) Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part 2) [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (3): 199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London :Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976) Theme and Information in the English Clause [A]. In Kress, G. (ed.), Halliday: System and Function in Language [C]. London: Oxford University Press. pp. 174-88.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An introduction to functional grammar [M]. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Fawcett, R. P. (eds.) (1987) New Development in Systemic Grammar: Theory and Description [C]. London: Frances Pinter.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985[1989]) Language Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective [M]. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (1984/1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold / Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halmari, H. & ?stman, J.-O. (2001) The Soft-Spoken, Angelic Pickax Killer: the Notion of Discourse Pattern in Conversational News Reporting [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6): 805-23.
Halmari, H. & Virtanen, T. (eds.) (2005) Persuasion across genres [C]. Amsterdam &Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Hatim, B. (2001) Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (2001) Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Haviland, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1974) What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, (13): 512-521.
Heim, I. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [D]. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts. / Amherst. 1989. New York: Garland.
Heim, I. (1983) File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness [A]. In B?uerle, R., Schwarze, C., & Stechow, A. von (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language [C]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hinds, J., Maynard, S. K. & Iwasake, S. (eds.) (1987) Perspectives on Topicalization: the Case of Japanese‘wa’[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hintzman, D, L, (1986)“Schema-abstraction”in a multiple trace model [J]. Psychological Review, (93), 411–428.
Hobbs, J. R. (1979) Coherence and coreference [J]. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90.
Hoey, M. P. (1983) On the surface of discourse [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin. Hoey, M. P. (1986) The discourse colony: a preliminary study of a neglected discourse type [A]. In Coulthard, R. M. (ed.), Talking about Text [C]. Discourse Analysis Monograph 13, English Language Research, University of Birmingham, 1–26.
Hoey, M. P. (2001) Textual Interaction [M]. London: Routledge.
Hoey, M. P. (2006) Clause Relations [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 2 [K]. Elsevier Ltd, 474– 481.
Hoey, M. P. & Winter, E. O. (1982) Believe me for mine honour: a stylistic analysis of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Antony at Caesar’s funeral in Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2, from the point of view of discourse construction [J]. Language & Style, 14(4): 315–339.
Hoey, M. P. & Winter, E. O. (1986) Clause relations and the writer’s communicative task [A]. In Couture, B. (ed.) Functional approaches to writing: research perspectives [C]. London: Frances Pinter, 120–141.
Hovy, E. H. (1990) Parsimonious and profligate approaches to the question of discourse structure relations [A]. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation [C]. Pittsburgh.
Huddleston, R., Hudson, R., Winter, E. & Henrici, A. (1968) Sentence and clause in scientific English, report of the research project‘The Linguistic Properties of Scientific English [R]. Unpublished report, Department of General Linguistics, University College London.
Iten, C. (1997) Because and although: A case of duality? [J] UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, (9): 55-76.
Iten, C. (1998) The meaning of although: A relevance theoretic account [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, (10): 81-108.
Iten, C. (2000)‘Non-truth conditional’meaning, relevance and concessives [D]. Ph.D. Diss, University of London.
Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar [M]. London: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1983) Semantics and Cognition [M]. London: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1987) The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, (18)3:369-411.
Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic structures [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1996) Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguistics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 93–129.
Jones, L. K. (1977) Theme in Expository English [M]. Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter Press.
Jordan M P (1984). Rhetoric of everyday English texts [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Jordan, M. P. (1988) Some advances in clause relational theory [A]. In Benson, J. D. & Greaves, W. S. (eds.), Systemic Functional Approaches to Discourse [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 282–301.
Jordan, M. P. (1990) Clause relations within the anaphoric nominal group. In Jordan, M. P. (ed.), The 16th LACUS forum [C]. Lake Bluff, IL: LACUS. 409–419.
Jordan, M. P. (1992) An integrated three-pronged analysis of a fund-raising letter [A]. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 171–226.
Jose, M. & Marco, L. Procedural Vocabulary: Lexical Signaling of Conceptual Relations in Discourse [J]. Applied linguistics, 1999: 1 - 21.
Kamp, H. (1981) A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation [A]. In Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., & Stokhof, M. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part I [C]. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. 277-322.
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic [M]. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963) The Structure of a Semantic Theory [J]. Language, 39(2): 170-210. (Reprinted in Rosenberg, J. F. & Travis, C. (eds.) (1971) Readings in the Philosophy of Language [C]. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. pp. 472-514)
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964) An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kay, P. (2002) An Informal Sketch of a Formal Architecture for Construction Grammar [J]. Grammars, Vol. 5, No. 1: 1-16.
Kay, P. (2005) Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction [A]. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish Company.
Kay, P. (To appear) The Limits of Construction Grammar [A]. In Trousdale, G. & T. Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar [C]. Oxford University Press.
Kehler, A. (2002) Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar [M]. CSLI Publications.
Kehler, A. (2004) Discourse Coherence [A]. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kehler, A. & Ward. G. (2004) Constraints on Ellipsis and Event Reference [A]. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008) Coherence and Coreference Revisited [J]. Journal of Semantics (Special Issue on Processing Meaning), 25(1): 1-44.
Kintsch, W. (1974) The representation of meaning in memory [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W. (1988) The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction- integration model [J]. Psychological Review, 95 (2): 163– 82.
Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. (1978) Toward a Model of Text Comprehension and Production [J]. Psychological Review, 85: 363-394.
Kiparsky, P. (1988) Agreement and Linking Theory [M]. Standford University.
Klinge, A. The English Modal Auxiliaries: from Lexical Semantics to Utterance Interpretation [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 1993: 315 - 357.
Knott, A. & Dale, R. (1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations [J]. Discourse Processes, (18): 35–62.
Knott, A. & Sanders, T. (1998) The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: an exploration of two languages [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 135–175.
K?nig. E. & Traugott, E. C. (1988) Pragmatic strengthening and semantic change: the conventionalizing of conversational implicature [A]. In Hüllen, W. & R. Schulze (eds.), Understanding the lexicon: meaning, sense and world knowledge in lexical semantics [C]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 110–124.
Lambrecht, K. (1981) Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard Frech [M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lambrecht, K. (1987a) Aboutness as a Cognitive Category: the Thetic-Categorical Distinction Revisited [A]. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L. & Filip, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. pp.366-82.
Lambrecht, K. (1987b) On the Status of SVO Sentences in French Discourse [A]. In Tomin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 217-61.
Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form [M]. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Cognitive models and prototype theory [A]. In Neisser, Ulric (ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization [C]. New York, Cambridge University Press. pp.63-100
Langacker, R. (1986) An introduction to cognitive grammar [J]. Cognitive Science 10, 1–40.
Langacker, R. W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford/California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford/California: Stanford University Press.
Lee, D. (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle [J]. Language, Learning & Technology, 5(3).
Longacre, R. (1972) Hierarchy and universality of discourse constituents in New Guinea languages: discussion and texts [M]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Longacre, R. (1979) The paragraph as a grammatical unit [A]. In Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax [C]. New York: Academic Press. 115–134.
Longacre, R. (1983) The Grammar of Discourse [M]. New York: Plenum Press.
Leech, G. (1981[1974]) Semantics: The Study of Meaning [M], 2nd edn [M].Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Levinsion, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1976) Subject and Topic: a New Typology of Language [A]. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic [M]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 457-89.
Longacre, R. E. (1976) An Anatomy of Speech Notions [M]. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Louwerse, M. & van Peer, W. (eds.) (2002) Thematics: interdisciplinary studies [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics, 2 vols [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995) Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse Perspectives for Language Teaching [M]. New York:Longman Publishing Company.
MacWhinney, B. (1977) Starting Points [J]. Language, 53: 152-68.
Mann, W. C. (2005) RST website [OL], available at: http://www.sfu.ca/rst. Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1986) Relational propositions in discourse [J]. Discourse Processes, (9): 57–90.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1987) Rhetorical structure theory: a theory of text organization [R]. Technical report, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization [J]. Text 8(3): 243-81.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) (1992) Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & Thompson, S. A. (1992) Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis [A]. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse Description. Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 39–78.
Marantz, A. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Marcu, D. (2000) The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization [M]. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Marcu, D. (2006) Discourse Parsing, Automatic [A]. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, E. & Tyler, L. (1982) Producing Interpretable Discourse: the Establishment and Maintenance of Reference [A]. In Jarvella, R. J. & W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action [C]. Chichester: Wiler. pp. 339-378.
Martin, J. R. (1984) Language, Register, and Genre [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1993) A Contextual theory of language [A]. In Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (eds.), The Powers of Literacy --- A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing [C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 116-136 .
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M]. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & Rothery, J. (1981) Writing Project Report No.2. Working Papers in Linguistics No.2 [R]. Linguistics Department, University of Sydney.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English [M]. London: Palgrave.
Mathesius, V. (1939) O takzvaném aktuálním ?leněnívěty. [On the So-called Actual Bipartition of the Sentence] [J]. Slovo a slovesnost, (5): 171-174.
McKnoon, G., & R. Ratcliff. (1992) Inference during reading [J]. Psychological Review, (99): 440-466.
Michaelis, L. A. (2006) Construction Grammar [A]. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Miller, C. R. (1984) Genre as social action [J]. Quaterly Journal of Speech, (70).
Miller, C. R. (1994) Rhetorical Community: the Cultural Basis of Genre [A]. In Freedman, A. & Medway, P. (eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric [C]. London: Taylor and Francis.
Minsky, M. (1974) A Framework for Representing Knowledge [A]. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo, 306, June. (Reprinted in Winston, P. (ed.) (1975), The Psychology of Computer Vision [C], McGraw-Hill.)
Mithum, M. (1987) Is Basic Word Order Universal? [A] In Tomlin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 281-328.
Muskens, R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 143– 86.
Myers, J. L. & O’Brien, E. J. (1998) Accessing the discourse representation during reading [J]. Discourse Processes, (26): 131–157.
Nicolle, S. (1997) A relevance theoretic account of be going to [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (33): 355–377.
Nicolle, S. (1998). A relevance theoretic perspective on grammaticalization [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, (9): 1–35.
Nida, E. (1975) Exploring Semantic Structure [M]. Munich: Fink.
Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. (1923) The Meaning of Meaning [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
?stman, Jan-Ola. (1999) Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns.
Focus on News Reports [A]. In Bublitz, Wolfram, et al. (eds), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 77 - 100.
?stman, Jan-Ola. (2005a) Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon [A]. In ?stman, Jan-Ola & Fried, Mirjam (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
?stman, Jan-Ola. (2005b) Persuasion as implicit anchoring: The case of collocations. [A] In Halmari, H. & Virtanen, T. (eds.), Persuasion across genres (Chapter 9) [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 183– 212.
Paltridge, B. (1996) Genre, Text Type, and the Language Learning Classroom [J]. ELT Journal, 50 (3): 237-43.
Paltridge, B. (1997) Genre, Frame, and Writing in Research Settings [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pander Maat, H. & Sanders, T. (2006) Connectives in Text [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 33– 41.
Pet?fi, J. & Rieser, H. (1973) Studies in text grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996) Frame Semantics [A]. In Verschueren, J. ?stman, J.-O., Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. 1996 Installment (13 pp.) [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Polanyi, L., Berg, M. van den & Ahn, D. (2003) Discourse Structure and Sentential Information Structure [J]. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, Vol. 12 (3). 1-16.
Pollard, C. J. & Sag, I. A. (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Prentice, J. L.(1967) Effects of Cuing Actor vs. Cuing Object on Word Order in Sentence Production [J]. Psychonomic Science, (8): 163-4.
Prince, E. F. (1981) Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press. pp. 223-56.
Prince, E. (1986) On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions [J]. Parasession papers CLS, (22): 208-22.
Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1988) What to do with theta-roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Thematic Relations, Syntax and Semantics, 21. New York: Academic Press. pp. 7-36.
Redeker, G. (1990) Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (14): 367–381.
Reinhart, T. (1981) Pragmatics and Linguistics: an Analysis of Sentence Topics [J]. Philosopica, 27(1): 53-94.
Renkema, J. (1993) Discourse Studies: an Introductory Textbook [M]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Renkema, J. (2004) Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977) Understanding and Summarizing Brief Stories [A]. In LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. J. (eds.), Basic Processes in Peading: Perception and Comprehension [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 265–303.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980) Schemata: the Building Blocks of Cognition [A]. In Spiro, B., Bruce, B. C. & Brewer, W. F. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation [J]. Language, (50): 696–735.
Saeed, J. I. (1997) Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sanders, T. (1997) Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: on the categorization of coherence relations in context [J]. Discourse Processes, (24): 119–147.
Sanders, T & Pander Maat, H. (2006) Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 2 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 591 - 595.
Sanders, T. & Sanders, J. (2006) Text and Text Analysis [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Vol. 12 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Sanders, T. & Schilperoord, J. (2005) Text structure as a window on the cognition of writing; How text analysis provides insights in writing products and writing processes processes [A]. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (eds.), Handbook of Writing Research [C]. New York: Guilford Press.
Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2007) Discourse and text structure [A]. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuykens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford University Press. pp. 916-41.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations [J]. Discourse Processes, (15): 1–35.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1993) Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, (4): 93–133.
Sanders, T. & van Wijk, C. (1996) PISA --- a Procedure for Analyzing the Structure of Explanatory Texts [J]. Text, 16(1): 91-132.
Sanford, A. (2006) Coherence: Psycholinguistic Approach [A]. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 2 [K]. Elsevier Ltd. 585-591.
Sanford, A. & Garrod, S. (1980) Memory and Attention in Text Comprehension: the Problem of Reference [A]. In Nickerson, R. (ed.), Attention and Performance VIII [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1981) Understanding written language: explorations beyond the sentence [M]. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Selective processes in text understanding [A]. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics [C]. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 699–720.
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension [J]. Discourse Processes, (26): 159–190.
Saussure, F. de. (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne/Paris: Payot. [Harris, R. (trans) 1983. Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.]
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into knowledge structures [M]. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1988) Conversation Analysis. In Newmeryer, F. J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 251- 276.
Schilperoord, J. (1996) It’s about time. Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production [M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Searl, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searl, J. R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seuren, P. A. M. (1985) Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seuren, P. A. M. (2006) Discourse semantics [A]. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 3 [K]. Elsevier Ltd.
Sgall, P. (1987) Prague Functionalism and Topic vs. Focus [A]. In Dirven, R. & Freid, V. (eds.), Functionalism in Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Singer, M., & Graesser, A. C. (1994) Minimal or global inference during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, (33): 421-41.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: communication and cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Srindhar, S. N. (1988) Cognition and Sentence Production: a Cross-Linguistic Study [M]. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Swales, J. M. (1981) Aspects of Article Introduction [R]. Aston ESP Research Report No. 1. The Language Studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham.
Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Acedemic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taboada, M. & Mann, W. C. (2006a) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead [J]. Discourse Studies, 8(3): 423–59.
Taboada, M. & Mann, W. C. (2006b) Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory [J]. Discourse Studies, 8(4): 567– 88.
Taylor, John R. (2004) Why Construction Grammar is radical [J]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (2): 321-348.
Tomlin, R. S. (1983) On the Interaction of Syntactic Subject, Thematic Information, and Agent in English [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (7): 411-32.
Tomlin, R. S. (1995) Focal Attention, Voice, and Word order: an Experimental, Cross-Linguistic Study [A]. In Downing, P. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Word Order in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 517-54.
Tomlin, R. S. (1997) Mapping Conceptual Representations into Linguistic Representations: the Role of Attention in Grammar [A]. In Nuyts, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.), With Language in Mind [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 162-89.
Tomlin, R. S., Forrest, L., Pu, M. M. & Kim, M. H. (1997) Discourse Semantics [A]. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed), Discourse as Structure and Process [C]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 63-111.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977) Cognitive structure in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse [J]. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
Traugott, E. C. (1988) Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization [A]. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society[C] 14, 406–416.
Traugott, E. C. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, D. & S. Wight (eds.) Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31–54.
Vachek, J. (ed.) (1966) The Linguistic School of Prague: an Introduction to its Theory and Practice [C]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Vallduví, E. (1992) The Information Component. New York: Carland.
van der Pool, E. (1995) Writing as a conceptual process. A text-analytical study of developmental aspects [D]. Ph.D. diss., Tilburg University.
van Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. A study in theoretical linguistics and poetics [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977) Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse [M]. New York: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1980) Macrostructures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
van Dijk, T. A. (1985a) Semantic Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol 2: Dimensions of discourse. London: Academic Press. pp. 103 – 37.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed) (1985b) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
van Wijk, C. & Sanders, T. (1999) Identifying writing strategies through text analysis [J]. Written Communication, (1): 52–76.
von Heusinger, K. (1999) Intonation and Information Structure [D]. PhD diss., University of Konstanz.
Ventola, E. (1984) Orientation to Social Semiotics in Foreign Language Teaching. Applied Linguistcs, (5).
Ventola, E. (1987) The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter.
Ventola, E. (1989) Problems of Modeling and Applied Issues within the Framework of Genre. Word, (40, 1-2).
Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1990) On the control of inferences in discourse understanding [A]. In Balota, D. A., d'Arcais, G. B. F., & Rayner, K. (eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 447-464.
Weil, H. (1887) The Order of Words in the Ancient Languages Compared with that of the Modern Languages (1844) (trans. C. Super), 3rd edn. Boston: Ginn.
Werlich, E. (1976) A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Werlich, E (1982) A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.
Wilensky, R. (1983) Story grammars and story points [J]. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 6, 579–623.
Williams, E. (1981) Argument Structure and Morphology [J]. The Linguistic Review, (1): 81-114.
Wilson, D. (1998) Discourse, coherence and relevance: A reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (29): 57-74.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993) Linguistic form and relevance [J]. Lingua, (90): 1-25.
Winter, E. (1971) Connection in science material: a proposition about the semantics of clause relations [A]. In Science and technology in a second language: papers from a seminar held at the University of Birmingham from 27th to 29th March 1971 [C]. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. pp. 41–52.
Winter, E. (1979). Replacement as a fundamental function of the sentence in context [J]. Forum Linguisticum, (4): 95–133.
Winter, E. (1982) Towards a Contextual Grammar of English [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Winter, E. (1986) Clause relations as information structure: two basic text structures in English [A]. In Coulthard, M. (eds.), Talking about Text: studies presented to David Brazil on his retirement [C]. Birmingham: English Language Research. 88–108.
Winter, E. (1992) The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analysing the information of a fund-raising letter [A]. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse Description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131–170.
Winter, E. (1994) Clause relations as information structure: two basic text structures in English (revised reprint) [A]. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in written text analysis [C]. London: Routledge. 46–68.
Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (2009) Doing Discourse Analysis [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C. & Graesser, A. C. (1995) The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: an event-indexing model [J]. Psychological Science, (6): 292–297.
Zwaan, R. A. & Radvansky, G. A. (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory [J]. Psychological Bulletin, (123): 162–185.
彼得·哈克[美]. (1988)语义整体论:弗雷格与维特根斯坦[A].牟博译.见:涂纪亮(主编),语言哲学名著选读[C].北京:三联书店.
布龙菲尔德,伦纳德[美]. (2006)语言科学的一套共设[A].雄兵译.见:布龙菲尔德语言学文集[C].长沙:湖南教育出版社. (原载: Bloomfield, L. (1926) A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language [J]. Language, (2): 153–164)
陈虎. (2003)语言信息结构及其多视角研究述评[J].解放军外国语学院学报,(5): 1-8.
陈敏. (2003)受话·旁听·窃听——话剧《原野》中闻者角色的语用解读[J].外语学刊, (2): 11-15.
陈忠华.话语宏观结构及其宏观操作[J].解放军外语学院学报,1994, (5).
陈忠华,管新平.话语宏观结构的认知心理学理据[J].外语研究, 1999, (4).
程琪龙. (1995)试论Fillmore格语法1971模式[J].解放军外语学院学报, (6): 16– 20.
丁声树等. (1961)现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆.
董敏. (2002)语篇连接词的认知语义及其语义限制[J].四川外语学院学报, (6): 97-101.
杜金榜. (2009)论语篇中的信息流动[J].外国语, (3): 36– 43.
菲尔墨. (2002[1980])“格”辨.胡明扬译.北京:商务印书馆。[原载1980,《语言学译丛》第二辑。北京:中国社会科学出版社。1 - 117页。]
菲尔墨. (2003)框架语义学[A]。詹卫东译.《语言学论丛》第二十七辑[C]。北京:商务印书馆。382 - 412页。
弗雷格著,王路译.(1998)算术基础[M].北京:商务印书馆.
傅雨贤等. (1997)现代汉语介词研究[M].广州:中山大学出版社.
高明乐. (2003)题元角色与题元角色理论[J].现代外语,(2): 211-218.
何自然,冉永平. (1999)话语联系语的语用制约性[J].外语教学与研究, (3):1-8.
胡曙中. (2004)现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
胡曙中. (2005)英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄衍. (1985)试论英语主位和述位[J].外国语, (5): 32-26+.
姜望琪. (2008a) Firth的语篇语义学思想[J].外国语言文学, (1): 1– 8.
姜望琪. (2008b) Martin的语篇语义学思想[J].北京科技大学学报, (4),95– 104.
姜望琪. (2009)语篇语义学与评价系统[J].外语教学, (2): 1– 8.
秦洪武,崔蓉. (2009)事件共指与话语连贯[J].当代语言学, (1): 10– 20.
李丛禾. (2003)关联推导中的程序性意义探析[J].外语教学, (5): 1– 7.
李临定. (1990)现代汉语动词[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
李美霞. (2007)话语类型研究[M].北京:科学出版社.
李佐文. (2003)话语联系语对连贯关系的标示[J].山东外语教学, (1): 32-36.
李勇忠,李春华. (2004)框架转换与意义建构[J].外语学刊, (3): 24-29.
李悦娥,范宏雅. (2002)话语分析[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
刘辰诞. (2001)教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
刘润清. (1995)西方语言学流派[M] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
刘宇红. (2010)生成语法中题元理论的批评性研究[J].外国语言文学, (2): 92– 97.
鲁川. (1991)动词谓语框架[J].汉语学习, (4).
吕叔湘. (1942)中国文法要略[M].重庆:商务印书馆.
孟琮等. (1987)动词用法辞典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社.
钱敏汝. (1988a)戴伊克的话语宏观结构论(上)[J].国外语言学,(2).
钱敏汝. (1988b)戴伊克的话语宏观结构论(下)[J].国外语言学,(3).
钱敏汝(2001)篇章语用学概论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
秦秀白. (2000)体裁教学法述评[J].外语教学与研究, (1): 42– 47.
屈承熹著;潘文国等译. (2006)汉语篇章语法[M].北京:北京语言大学出版社.
沈家煊. (2006)概念整合与浮现意义[J].修辞学习, (5): 1-4.
唐青叶. (2009)语篇语言学[M].上海:上海大学出版社.
田海龙. (2009)语篇研究:范畴、视角、方法[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王汉平,李庆新. (2007)语义与语篇理解——谈单句语篇中关键词的语篇功能[J].双语学习, (6): 127-128+.
王惠. (2005)从构式语法理论看汉语词义研究[J].中文计算语言学刊(台湾), 10(4): 475-507.
王寅. (2007)认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王义娜. (2003)话语指称的认知构建与心理空间可及性[J].外国语, (5): 35– 42.
王振华. (2009)语篇语义的研究路径——一个范式、两个脉络、三种功能、四种语义、五个视角[J].中国外语, (6): 26– 38.
卫真道(美)著.徐赳赳译. (2002)篇章语言学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
维特根斯坦. (1983)逻辑哲学论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
维特根斯坦. (1992)哲学研究[M].上海:上海三联书店.
维特根斯坦著,涂纪亮译. (2003)蓝皮书和褐皮书[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社.
肖云枢. (2001)概念信息与程序信息[M].外语学刊,(3): 7-13.
熊学亮.话语的宏观结构[J].外语教学与研究, 1996, (1).
徐烈炯. (1995 [1990])语义学(第二版)[M].北京:语文出版社。
徐盛桓. (1982)主位和述位[J].外语教学与研究, (1): 1-9.
许余龙. (2000)英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J].外语教学与研究, (5): 321– 28.
许余龙. (2002)语篇回指的认知语言学探索[J].外国语, (1): 28– 37.
许余龙. (2003)语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证[J].外国语, (2): 17– 24.
杨家勤,张允. (2010)句际关系视角下主位推进模式的语篇建构功能[J].北京第二外国语学院学报, (6): 38-44+.
杨家勤. (2011)话语生产者角色及其转换背后的意识操纵[J].东北师大学报, (1): 135-138.
叶枫. (2010)动态会话中的受话者话语角色分析[J].南阳师范学院学报, (10): 111-115+.
俞东明. (1996)话语角色类型及其在言语交际中的转换[J].外国语, (1): 19-22.
张德禄,刘汝山. (2003)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.
张发祥,康立新,赵文超. (2009)话语分析:理论与案例[M].北京:科学出版社.
张今,张克定. (1998)英汉语信息结构对比研究[M].开封:河南大学出版社.
朱永生. (2001)英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生,严世清. (2001)系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.