认知框架视角下的语篇连贯研究
|
摘要
人类的言语活动要求交际双方表达思想清楚、前后脉络贯通,避免前言不搭后语,这就是言语活动的“连贯”要求。“连贯”是哲学、心理学、语言学、人工智能等的共生课题。连贯研究在阅读与写作等言语活动中具有悠久的历史,而真正引起广泛关注的则是Halliday和Hassan《英语的衔接》(1976)出版之后的事情。在随后的三十多年里,连贯研究已成为系统功能语言学和语篇分析等领域的重要课题,其研究广度与深度都得到了极大拓展,研究成果丰硕。这些研究只能说部分解决了“什么是连贯”等基本问题,但目前仍缺乏一种公认的连贯研究模型。随着近年来认知语言学的迅猛发展,人们开始思考借用其概念与方法去诠释连贯。受此启迪,本文采用“认知框架”概念,意在构建语篇连贯解读的认知框架模型,探究语篇连贯研究的新视角或新方法。
研究假设：语篇连贯就是解读语篇意义,是解读者在微观、中观和宏观认知框架中,通过激活语篇的词素、词、小句、段落等语言符号所裹挟的概念和概念关系,在其心智中产生的意义关联。
认知框架的工作定义：认知框架(简称“框架”)是建立在人类体验之上、与场景相关的概念结构,是信仰、社会实践、制度、意向等的图式表征,是语篇编码概念所预设的背景知识,是特定言语社团成员交流的认知基础,是微观、中观和宏观三位一体的认知结构。
各章的内容和主要观点如下：
第一章介绍选题缘由、研究目标与方法、主要观点与创新。第二章梳理语篇与语篇连贯的定义与分类,归纳出语篇连贯研究的语言形式功能、语用推理、认知心理和多维研究等方法,从而提出从认知框架视角研究语篇连贯的必要性。
第三章从认知框架的特征、定义与分类出发,重构语篇连贯研究的微观、中观和宏观认知框架三位一体的理论模型。
第四、第五和第六章分论微观、中观和宏观认知框架如何作用于语篇连贯。第四章把词素、词、小句等语言单位所激活的概念与概念场,视为解读语篇连贯的微观认知框架的启动因素,而概念隐喻和概念转喻则是语篇连贯中起作用的两种主要微观认知框架类型。概念隐喻作用于语篇连贯取决于源概念场和目标概念场中各概念与概念关系的系统映射,概念转喻作用于语篇连贯则取决于同一概念场中各概念间的邻近关系。第五章探究语篇连贯解读的中观认知框架,句际与段际之间的各种逻辑语义关系与意象图式是其具体表现。因果、相似和邻近等逻辑语义关系是语篇连贯解读的观念联络原则,意象图式则是感知体验在人类心智中反复出现的模式,是连接语言与认知思维的中介。第六章根据框架语义学与构式语法的互补关系,提出语篇构式是语篇连贯解读的宏观认知框架。语篇构式是语言的构式研究推广到篇章层次的自然要求,在更高层次上揭示了语篇理解的整体性与宏观意图。论证结构和故事结构是两种典型的语篇构式,它们在宏观层次上保证了语篇连贯。
第七章考察认知框架的动态性对语篇连贯解读的作用。认知框架是语篇分析的一种方法、策略和世界观,用于分析言语产品,既可揭示构建者的话语意图,又能洞悉因不同解读者的认知视角差所蕴含的不同语篇连贯方式。媒体对2008年金融危机的报道揭示了不同话语构建者的认知视角差,对宋词人李清照《如梦令》原文与英译文对比分析,则彰显了不同解读者的认知视角所衍生的多重语篇意义。
第八章回望本研究的主要内容、创新与不足。本研究有三方面的创新：(1)以认知语言学的“认知框架”为语篇连贯研究的理论根据,开创了语篇连贯研究的新方法和新视野；(2)从微观、中观和宏观三方面范畴化“认知框架”,并用于构建语篇连贯解读的认知框架模型,突破了言内与言外的二元对立分类标准；(3)提出了“语篇构式”概念,既拓展了构式语法的研究层次,又能确保语篇连贯的正确解读。
Speech activities require both sides of communication to express ideas clearly and coherently so as to avoid incoherence."Coherence", a requirement in speech activities, is a shared topic for philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and artificial intelligence. Even if the study of discourse coherence in such speech activities as reading and writing has enjoyed quite a long history, what really causes a widespread concern begins at the publication of Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hassan (1976). Since then, coherence has become a major topic in systemic functional linguistics and discourse analysis, abundant research articles and monographs have come out. However, these studies have only partially solved such basic issue as "What is coherence?" and a universally acknowledged research model does not exist. With the rapid development of cognitive linguistics in recent years, quite a few scholars have begun to employ its concepts or methods to interpret discourse coherence. The present study, inspired by such a movement, delves into discourse coherence on the basis of "cognitive frame" by constructing a new interpretation model.
Hypothesis:Discourse coherence, the interpretation of textual meaning, is meaning association in the interpreters'mind on the basis of micro-, meso-, and macro-cognitive frames after activating the concepts and conceptual relations represented by morphemes, words, clauses and paragraphs.
Cognitive frame (shortened as "frame") is the conceptual structures built on top of human experience, the schematic representations of beliefs, social practices, systems and intention, background knowledge for concepts, the cognitive basis of speech exchange in a particular speech community, consisting of micro-, meso-and macro-cognitive structures.
The main contents and ideas for each chapter are as follows:
Chapter I introduces the reason for choosing the topic, the research objectives and methods, the main ideas and innovations. Chapter Ⅱ begins with the definition of discourse, discourse coherence and its classifications, and then sums up the research methods of discourse coherence as form-functional, pragmatic, cognitive-psychological and multidimensional ones, which necessitates the study of discourse coherence from cognitive frame perspective. Chapter III constructs a trinity research model (micro-, meso-, and macro-cognitive frames) for discourse coherence after observing cognitive frame's defining features and existing categorization.
Chapters Ⅳ, Ⅴ, and Ⅵ highlight micro-, meso-and macro-cognitive frame for discourse coherence. Chapter IV points out that language units such as morphemes, words, and clauses activate concepts and conceptual fields, laying foundation for micro-cognitive frame for discourse coherence. Many conceptual metaphors and conceptual metonymies accordingly produce coherence in discourse. Conceptual metaphor is the concepts and conceptual relations from the source conceptual field systematically mapped onto the target ones, while conceptual metonymy is generated by the contiguous relations between the concepts in the same conceptual field. Chapter V contends that the logical semantic relations and image schema existing between sentences or paragraphs are conceptual foundation for meso-cognitive frames. Logical semantic relations such as causing, similarity, contiguity are intentional principles for discourse coherence in this respect; image schemas, recurring patterns in human minds, are the intermediary between language and cognition, reflecting human perception and experience. Chapter VI holds that discourse constructions, higher level of image schema and requirement of construction studies at the discoursal level, are the macro-cognitive frames for discourse coherence, reflecting the holistic and macro intentions of discourse comprehension. Argument structure and story structure are two typical discourse constructions to ensure overall discourse coherence.
Chapter Ⅶ reasons out the dynamic nature of cognitive frames for discourse coherence. Cognitive frame transformation or framing is a way of discourse analysis, strategy or world view, revealing the authors'perspective as well as different ways for discourse coherence. The reports of2008's financial crisis and the comparative analyses of Li Qingzhao's Like a Dream and its four English versions highlight numerous ways of discourse coherence due to the authors or readers'different cognitive perspectives.
Chapter Ⅷ reviews this study, pointing out its innovations and limitations. Three innovations are worth mentioning:(1) cognitive frame adding to discourse coherence a new perspective or approach;(2) reconstructing a new model for discourse coherence by proposing micro-, meso-and macro-cognitive frames;(3) proposing the concept of "discourse constructions", which not only expands construction studies, but also ensure discourse coherence on the macro-level.
研究假设：语篇连贯就是解读语篇意义,是解读者在微观、中观和宏观认知框架中,通过激活语篇的词素、词、小句、段落等语言符号所裹挟的概念和概念关系,在其心智中产生的意义关联。
认知框架的工作定义：认知框架(简称“框架”)是建立在人类体验之上、与场景相关的概念结构,是信仰、社会实践、制度、意向等的图式表征,是语篇编码概念所预设的背景知识,是特定言语社团成员交流的认知基础,是微观、中观和宏观三位一体的认知结构。
各章的内容和主要观点如下：
第一章介绍选题缘由、研究目标与方法、主要观点与创新。第二章梳理语篇与语篇连贯的定义与分类,归纳出语篇连贯研究的语言形式功能、语用推理、认知心理和多维研究等方法,从而提出从认知框架视角研究语篇连贯的必要性。
第三章从认知框架的特征、定义与分类出发,重构语篇连贯研究的微观、中观和宏观认知框架三位一体的理论模型。
第四、第五和第六章分论微观、中观和宏观认知框架如何作用于语篇连贯。第四章把词素、词、小句等语言单位所激活的概念与概念场,视为解读语篇连贯的微观认知框架的启动因素,而概念隐喻和概念转喻则是语篇连贯中起作用的两种主要微观认知框架类型。概念隐喻作用于语篇连贯取决于源概念场和目标概念场中各概念与概念关系的系统映射,概念转喻作用于语篇连贯则取决于同一概念场中各概念间的邻近关系。第五章探究语篇连贯解读的中观认知框架,句际与段际之间的各种逻辑语义关系与意象图式是其具体表现。因果、相似和邻近等逻辑语义关系是语篇连贯解读的观念联络原则,意象图式则是感知体验在人类心智中反复出现的模式,是连接语言与认知思维的中介。第六章根据框架语义学与构式语法的互补关系,提出语篇构式是语篇连贯解读的宏观认知框架。语篇构式是语言的构式研究推广到篇章层次的自然要求,在更高层次上揭示了语篇理解的整体性与宏观意图。论证结构和故事结构是两种典型的语篇构式,它们在宏观层次上保证了语篇连贯。
第七章考察认知框架的动态性对语篇连贯解读的作用。认知框架是语篇分析的一种方法、策略和世界观,用于分析言语产品,既可揭示构建者的话语意图,又能洞悉因不同解读者的认知视角差所蕴含的不同语篇连贯方式。媒体对2008年金融危机的报道揭示了不同话语构建者的认知视角差,对宋词人李清照《如梦令》原文与英译文对比分析,则彰显了不同解读者的认知视角所衍生的多重语篇意义。
第八章回望本研究的主要内容、创新与不足。本研究有三方面的创新：(1)以认知语言学的“认知框架”为语篇连贯研究的理论根据,开创了语篇连贯研究的新方法和新视野；(2)从微观、中观和宏观三方面范畴化“认知框架”,并用于构建语篇连贯解读的认知框架模型,突破了言内与言外的二元对立分类标准；(3)提出了“语篇构式”概念,既拓展了构式语法的研究层次,又能确保语篇连贯的正确解读。
Speech activities require both sides of communication to express ideas clearly and coherently so as to avoid incoherence."Coherence", a requirement in speech activities, is a shared topic for philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and artificial intelligence. Even if the study of discourse coherence in such speech activities as reading and writing has enjoyed quite a long history, what really causes a widespread concern begins at the publication of Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hassan (1976). Since then, coherence has become a major topic in systemic functional linguistics and discourse analysis, abundant research articles and monographs have come out. However, these studies have only partially solved such basic issue as "What is coherence?" and a universally acknowledged research model does not exist. With the rapid development of cognitive linguistics in recent years, quite a few scholars have begun to employ its concepts or methods to interpret discourse coherence. The present study, inspired by such a movement, delves into discourse coherence on the basis of "cognitive frame" by constructing a new interpretation model.
Hypothesis:Discourse coherence, the interpretation of textual meaning, is meaning association in the interpreters'mind on the basis of micro-, meso-, and macro-cognitive frames after activating the concepts and conceptual relations represented by morphemes, words, clauses and paragraphs.
Cognitive frame (shortened as "frame") is the conceptual structures built on top of human experience, the schematic representations of beliefs, social practices, systems and intention, background knowledge for concepts, the cognitive basis of speech exchange in a particular speech community, consisting of micro-, meso-and macro-cognitive structures.
The main contents and ideas for each chapter are as follows:
Chapter I introduces the reason for choosing the topic, the research objectives and methods, the main ideas and innovations. Chapter Ⅱ begins with the definition of discourse, discourse coherence and its classifications, and then sums up the research methods of discourse coherence as form-functional, pragmatic, cognitive-psychological and multidimensional ones, which necessitates the study of discourse coherence from cognitive frame perspective. Chapter III constructs a trinity research model (micro-, meso-, and macro-cognitive frames) for discourse coherence after observing cognitive frame's defining features and existing categorization.
Chapters Ⅳ, Ⅴ, and Ⅵ highlight micro-, meso-and macro-cognitive frame for discourse coherence. Chapter IV points out that language units such as morphemes, words, and clauses activate concepts and conceptual fields, laying foundation for micro-cognitive frame for discourse coherence. Many conceptual metaphors and conceptual metonymies accordingly produce coherence in discourse. Conceptual metaphor is the concepts and conceptual relations from the source conceptual field systematically mapped onto the target ones, while conceptual metonymy is generated by the contiguous relations between the concepts in the same conceptual field. Chapter V contends that the logical semantic relations and image schema existing between sentences or paragraphs are conceptual foundation for meso-cognitive frames. Logical semantic relations such as causing, similarity, contiguity are intentional principles for discourse coherence in this respect; image schemas, recurring patterns in human minds, are the intermediary between language and cognition, reflecting human perception and experience. Chapter VI holds that discourse constructions, higher level of image schema and requirement of construction studies at the discoursal level, are the macro-cognitive frames for discourse coherence, reflecting the holistic and macro intentions of discourse comprehension. Argument structure and story structure are two typical discourse constructions to ensure overall discourse coherence.
Chapter Ⅶ reasons out the dynamic nature of cognitive frames for discourse coherence. Cognitive frame transformation or framing is a way of discourse analysis, strategy or world view, revealing the authors'perspective as well as different ways for discourse coherence. The reports of2008's financial crisis and the comparative analyses of Li Qingzhao's Like a Dream and its four English versions highlight numerous ways of discourse coherence due to the authors or readers'different cognitive perspectives.
Chapter Ⅷ reviews this study, pointing out its innovations and limitations. Three innovations are worth mentioning:(1) cognitive frame adding to discourse coherence a new perspective or approach;(2) reconstructing a new model for discourse coherence by proposing micro-, meso-and macro-cognitive frames;(3) proposing the concept of "discourse constructions", which not only expands construction studies, but also ensure discourse coherence on the macro-level.
引文
曹先擢、苏培成.1999.汉字形义分析字典[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
陈骙.1962.文则[A].载于郭绍虞、罗根泽主编《中国古典文学理论批评选辑》[C].北京：人民文学出版社。
陈平.1991[1987].汉语零形回指的话语分析[A].载于《现代语言学研究：理论、方法与事实》.重庆：重庆出版社,181-209页。
陈光磊.1994/2001.汉语词法论[M].上海：学林出版社。
陈海庆.2005.语篇连贯：言语行为模式[D].东北师范大学。
陈望道.2006.修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团。
陈新仁.1999.广告用语中的语用预设[J].修辞学习,第1期：第38-39页。
陈中平、白解红.2011.框架、场景与视角：Fillmore语义理论认知观探源[J]。外语教学与研究,第5期：665-675页。
陈宗明.2007.智慧人生：日常推理之谜[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
程琪龙.2001.认知语言学概论——语言的神经认知基础[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
程琪龙.2006.概念框架和认知[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
程晓堂.2005.基于功能语言学的语篇连贯研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
崔梅、李红梅.2001.言语交流的连贯因素研究[M].昆明：云南民族出版社。
邓静.2010.翻译研究的框架语义学视角评析[J]。外语教学与研究,第1期：66-71页。
董天策、徐宁.2005.从“连战访问大陆”看市场化报纸的时政报道—香港《东方日报》与国民党《中央日报》报道框架的比较分析[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),第6期：232-235页。
董为光.2004.汉语词义发展基本类型[M].武汉：华中科技大学出版社。
杜世洪.2008.脉辨：话语互动的理论基础[D].华东师范大学博士论文。
范开泰、张亚军.2000.现代汉语语法分析[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社。
费尔默.2002. “格”辨[M],胡明扬译.北京：商务印书馆。
冯晓虎.1999.作为篇章连贯手段的概念隐喻[D].北京外国语大学博士论文。
冯晓虎.2004.隐喻：思维的基础,篇章的框架[M].北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社。
傅菁菁、李天贤.2009.拟误”格手机短信幽默效应的认知探析[J].昆明学院学报,第5期： 122-125页。
傅勇林.2000.文脉、意脉与语篇阐释——Ha11iday与刘熙载篇章理论之比较研究[J].外语与外语教学,第1期：19-26页。
伽达默尔.2007a/b.真理与方法(上、下卷)[M],洪汉鼎译.北京：商务印书馆。
韩仲谦.2008.《白杨礼赞》认知解读[J].宿州学院学报,第1期：63-67页。
黑格尔.1986.小逻辑[M].北京：商务印书馆。
洪明.2009.向心理论的局部连贯模式与二语写作质量评价[D]。上海外国语大学博士论文。
洪堡特.1999.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M],姚小平译。北京：商务印书馆。
胡春阳.2007.话语分析：传播研究的新途径[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄.1989.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社。
胡壮麟.1994.语篇的衔接和连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟.1995.当代语言理论与应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
胡壮麟.1996.有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考[J].外国语,第1期：1-8页。
黄 旦.2005.传者图像：新闻专业主义的构建与消解[M].复旦大学出版社。
黄国文.1988.语篇分析概要[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社。
黄国文.1998.语篇分析的理论与实践[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄国文.2001.语篇分析的理论与实践—广告语篇研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄惠萍.2003.媒介框架之预设判准效应与阅听人的政策评估——以核四案为例[J],原载台湾《新闻学研究》第77期。2010年6月18日下载于《传媒学术网》http://academic. mediachina.net)
姜望琪.2003.当代语用学[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
康 德.2004.纯粹理性批判[M].李秋零等译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
李福印.2007,意象图式理论[J].四川外语学院学报.第1期：80-85页。
李更生.2006.语篇连贯的多视角研究[J].武汉科技学院学报,第9期：102-105页。
李良沛.2006.隐喻系统性及其对语篇连贯的作用[D].四川大学.
李天贤、庞继贤.2008.从构式语法看公式化语言的认知机制[J].西安电子科技大学学报(社科版),第1期：141-146页。
李天紫.2007.从语篇层次看概念隐喻的认知作用[J].太原大学教育学院学报,第1期：61-64页。
李勇忠.2004.言语行为转喻与话语的深层连贯[J].外语教学,第3期：14-18页。
李佐文.2004.话语标记与语篇连贯研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
廖秋忠.1992.廖秋忠文集[C].北京：北京语言学院出版社。
廖艳君.2004.新闻报道的语言学研究：消息语篇的衔接和连贯[D].湖南师范大学博士论文。
刘鸿绅.1987.篇章语言学的发展及研究领域(上)[J].国外语言学,第3期：124-130,144页。
刘礼进.2002.再论衔接与连贯[J].福建外语,第1期：6-11页。
刘丽华、李明君.2008.意象图式理论研究的进展与前沿[M].哈尔滨工业大学学报,第4期：110-117页。
陆国强.1999.现代英语词汇学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
吕叔湘.1979/2002.汉语语法分析问题[A].载于黄国营编《吕叔湘选集》[C],第120-200页。长春：东北师范大学出版社。
孟建刚.2001.关联性与会话语篇连贯研究[J].外语学刊,第2期：54-59页。
苗兴伟.1998.论街接与连贯的关系[J].外国语,第4期：44-49页。
苗兴伟.1999.关联理论对语篇连贯的解释力[J].外语教学与研究,第3期：9-14页。
潘文国.2007.英汉语篇对比与中国的文章之学[J].外语教学,第5期：1-5页。
庞继贤、叶宁.2011.西方语类理论比较分析[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),第41卷,第2期：160-168页。
庞继贤.1993.“语篇体裁分析”理论评析[J].浙江大学学报,第2期：105—111页。
庞继贤.1995.介绍一本实用语篇分析的专著[J].外语教学与研究,第3期：73—74页。
庞继贤.2009.《话语研究新进展》介绍[J].外语教学与研究,第1期：77—79页。
彭家玉.2002.语篇连贯研究的新视角[J].西安外国语学院学报,第2期：13-15页。
钱乃荣.2001.现代汉语(修订版)[M].南京：江苏教育出版社。
钱汝敏.2001.篇章语用学概论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
屈承熹.2006.汉语篇章语法[M],潘文国等译.北京：北京语言大学出版社。
任绍曾.2006.概念隐喻和语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究,第2期：91-100页。
任绍曾.2008.概念隐喻与语篇—对体现概念隐喻的语篇的多维分析[J].外语教学与研究,第2期：83-92页。
沈家煊.1995. “有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,第5期。载于沈家煊(2006)《认知与汉语语法研究》[C],第2-29页。北京：商务印书馆。
史友为.2004.汉语语篇连贯性问题概析[J].修辞学习,第5期：1-10页。
束定芳.2008.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
宋柔.2000.现代汉语书面语中跨小句的句法关系.香港城市大学讲座稿。
宋均芬.2002.汉语词汇学[M].北京：知识出版社。
孙常叙.2006.汉语词汇[M].北京：商务印书馆。
王甦、汪安圣.1992.认知心理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
王轩.2006. 中国三家日报关于美伊战争报道的新闻框架分析[A].传媒网学术网(http://academic.mediachina.net)
王寅.2005.语篇连贯的认知世界分析方法——体验哲学和认知语言学对语篇连贯性的解释[J].外语学刊,第4期：16-23页。
王寅.2006.认知语言学与语篇连贯研究——八论语言的体验性：语篇连贯的认知基础[J],外语研究,第6期：6-12页。
王寅.2007.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王东风.1999.文学翻译的多维连贯性研究[D].北京大学博士论文。
王全智.2002.也谈衔接、连贯与关联[J].外语学刊,第2期：77-79页。
王文斌、林波.2003.英语幽默言语的认知语用探究：兼论RT与CB的互补性[J].外国语,第4期：32-38页。
王文斌.2001.从两首唐诗的英译看文学翻译中的未定性和具体化[J].中国翻译,第2期：52-54页。
王文斌.2004.幽默言语解读的在线认知机制阐释[J],宁波大学学报(人文科学版),第2期：6-9,22页。
王文斌.2005.英语词法概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王文斌.2007.隐喻的认知构建与解读[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
维特根斯坦,2003.逻辑哲学论[A]。载于《维特根斯坦全集》(第一卷),陈启伟译。石家庄：河北教育出版社,第185-264页。
魏在江.2004.英汉语篇连贯认知对比与研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文。
魏在江.2005.语篇连贯的元语用探析[J].外语教学,第6期：19-24页。
魏在江.2006.在继承中探索：谈《文心雕龙》的语篇思想[J].中国外语,第4期：50-54页。
魏在江.2007a.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社。
魏在江.2007b.概念转喻与语篇衔接：各派分歧、理论背景及实验支持[J].外国语,第2期： 29-36。
魏在江.2008.隐喻与文学语篇的构建[J].外语与外语教学,第3期：13-16页。
文旭、叶狂.2003.概念隐喻的系统性和连贯性[J].外语学刊,第3期：1-7页。
沃尔夫,2001.语言、心理与现实[A]。载于《论语言、思维和现实：沃尔夫文集》,高一虹等译。长沙：湖南教育出版社,第249-277页。
吴启主,2000.汉语构件语法语篇学[M].长沙：岳麓书社。
谢毅.1990.语篇的连贯性[D].复旦大学博士论文。
熊学亮.1996.话语的宏观结构[J].外语教学与研究,第1期：19-23页。
休谟.1997.人类理解研究[M].关文运译.北京：商务印书馆。
徐健.2004.衔接、语篇组织和连贯[D].复旦大学博士论文。
徐珺.2002.《儒林外史》英汉语篇对比研究——系统功能语言学的尝试[J].外语与外语教学,第12期：1-5页。
徐珺.2003.功能语法用于《儒林外史》汉英语篇的研究：情景语境观[J].现代外语,第2期：128-134页。
徐珺.2004.上下文语境研究：《儒林外史》英汉对比研究[J].外语学刊,第1期：60-66页。
徐赳赳.2003.现代汉语篇章回指研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社。
徐赳赳.2010.现代汉语篇章语言学[M].北京：商务印书馆。
杨才英.2006.新闻访谈中的人际连贯研究[D].山东大学博士论文。
杨斐翡.2004.主位推进与语篇连贯[J].西安外国语学院学报,第4期：7-10页。
杨自俭.1994.翻译新论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社。
于屏方.2007.动作义位释义的框架模式研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社。
余东.2002.衔接、连贯与翻译之关系研究[D].南开大学博士论文。
张玮.2008.隐喻视角下的语篇连贯研究[D].山东大学博士论文。
张德禄,2000.论语篇连贯[J],外语教学与研究,第2期：103-109页。
张德禄、刘汝山.2003.语篇连贯与街接理论的发展及应用[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张德禄.1989.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社。
张德禄.1992.语篇连贯与信息结构[J].外语研究,第3期：7-11,26页。
张德禄.1994.论语篇连贯的条件[J].现代外语,第1期：19-24页。
张德禄.1999.语篇连贯纵横谈[J].外国语,第6期：24-31页。
张德禄.2006.语篇连贯的宏观原则[J].外语与外语教学,第10期：7-10,13页。
张洪忠.2001.大众传播学的议程设置理论与框架理论关系探讨[J],西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版,第10期：88-91页。
张建科.2003.合成空间理论对语篇连贯的动态阐释[D].曲阜师范大学硕士论文。
张克旭、臧海群、韩纲、何婕.1999.从媒介现实到受众现实——从框架理论看电视报道我驻南使馆被炸事件[J].新闻与传播研究,第2期：2-10页。
张新杰、邱天河.2009.语篇连贯研究综述[J].外语与外语教学,第10期：18-22页。
赵霞、刘佳.2008.认知语言学对语篇连贯研究的启示[J].江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版),第3期：75-79页。
郑贵友.2002.汉语篇章语言学[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社。
周红云.2006.衔接在功能语篇分析中的应用[J].外语与外语教学,第10期：22-24页。
周锰珍.2006.认知经济原则与投资指南翻译的信息量调控[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,第4期：76-79页。
朱永生、苗兴伟.2000.语用预设的语篇功能[J].外国语,第3期：25-30页。
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。
朱永生.1995.主位推进模式与语篇分析[J].外语教学与研究,第3期：6-12页。
Al-Sharafi, A. G. M.2004. Textual Metonymy: A Semiotic Approach [M]. London:Palgrave.
Andor, J.2010. Discussing frame semantics:The state of the art—An interview with Charles Fillmore [J]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,8(1):157-176.
Ariel, M.1990. Accessing Noun Phrase antecedents[M]. London: Routledge.
Auer, P.2000. On constructions turning into constructions: From Pragmatics to Grammar in German conditions. Presentation on the panel on pragmatic aspect on Frame Semantics and Construction Grammar at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest, July 9-14,2000.
Austin, J. L.1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Barcelona, A. (ed.).2003a. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A.2003b. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics:an analysis and a few modest proposals [C]. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. U. Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Gunter Radden,223-255. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Barcelona, A.2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains [A]. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C],313-352. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barlett.1932. Remembering[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L. W.1992. Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual fields[A]. In Lehrer, A. and Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization[C],21-74. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Barsalou, L. W.1999. Perceptual symbol systems[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22,577-609.
Bazerman, C.2004. Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems:How Texts Organize Activity and People[C], In Bazerman, C & P. Prior (eds.) What Texts Do and How they Do It. Erlbaum.
Bednarek, M. A.2005. Frame revisited—the coherence-inducing function of frames [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,37:685-705.
Bhatia, V. K.1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M]. London: Longman.
Billig, M.1987. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. L.1992. Understanding Utterance [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bloomfield, L.1933. Language[M]. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Brown, G.& Yule, G 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bublitz, W.1999. Introduction:views of coherence [A]. In Bublitz, U. Lenk & Ventola (eds). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse [C],1-7. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cacciari, C.1998. Why Do We Speak Metaphorically? Reflections on the Functions of Metaphor in Discourse and Reasoning [A]. In A. N. Katz, C. Cacciari, R. W. Gibbs,&. M. Turner (Eds). Figurative Language and Thought [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,119-157.
Campell, K. S.1995. Continuity and Cohesion: Theoretical Foundation of Document Design [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaurn Association.
Carrel, P. L.1982. Cohesion is not coherence[J]. TESOL Quarterly,16:479-488.
Carroll, D. W.2000. Psychology of Language北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
Christie, F.1999. Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and social processes[C]. London: Cassell.
Cienki, A.1997. Some properties and groupings of image schemas[A]. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong, & Eve Sweetser (eds.) Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning: Proceedings of the bi-annual ICLA meeting in Albaquerque July 1995[C],3-15. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Clark, H. H.1996. Using Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clausner, T. C.& Croft, W.1999. Domains and Image Schemas [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1999(10): 1-31.
Coe, R.2002:The new rhetoric of genre: Writing political brief. In A. M. Johns (ed.), Genre in the Classroom. London:Lawrence Erbaum,197-207.
Cook, G. 1989. Language Teaching Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbett, J.2005. Genre and Genre Analysis[A]. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics[C], Vol.6: 26-32. Elsevier.
Cornish, F.1996. Coherence—the Lifeblood of Anaphora [A]. In W. de Mulder & L. Tasmowski (eds), Coherence and Anaphora[C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins,37-54.
Coulson, S.2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.& Cruse, D. A.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.1993. The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (4):335-370.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.2009. Connecting frames and constructions:a case study of eat and feed [J]. Construcitons and Frames 1(1):7-28.
Cruse, D. A.1986. Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A.2004. Meaning in Language[M]. London: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D.1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D.1991. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [Z]. London:Blackwell.
Danes, F.1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text[C]. In F. Danes, ed. Papers on Functional Sentence Persepctive. Prague: Academia/The Hague: Mouton:106-128.
Danesi, M.2000. Semiotics in Language Educaiton [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Danesi, M.2004. Metaphor and conceptual productivity: Results of a pilot project [J].Semiotica 148-1/4: 399-411.
de Beaugrande, R.& Dressler, W. U.1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. London: Longman.
de Vega, M.1984. Introduccion a laPsicologia Cognitiva [M]. Madrid: Alianza.
Dirven R.& Radden, G 1987. Fillmore's Case Grammar: A Reader. Heidelberg:J Groos.
Eggins, S.1994. An Introduction to Functional Systemic Linguistics[M]. London: Pinter Publishers.
Enkvist, N. E.1978. Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence [A]. In J. O. Ostman (ed.). Cohesion and Semantics [C]. Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi Foundation.
Ensink, T.& Sauer, C.2003. Social-functional and cognitive approaches to discourse interpretation: the role of frame and perspective [A]. In Ensink, T (ed.). Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1-21.
Evans, V.& Green, M.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V.2009. Semantic representation in LCCM Theory[A]. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics[C],27-55.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power[M]. London:Longman.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis [M]. London /New York:Longman.
Fauconnier, G.& Sweetser, E.1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fauconnier, G & Turner, M.1998. Conceptual integration networks [J]. Cognitive Science 22 (2): 133-187.
Fauconnier, G.& Turner, M.2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G 1998. Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration [A]. In Michael, T. (ed.) The New Psychology of Language [C]. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Fillmore, C. J.& Baker, C. F.2000. FrameNet: Frame Semantics Meets the Corps. Poster Session at the Linguistic Society of America. January 2000.
Fillmore, C. J.& Kay, P.1996. Construction Grammar Coursebook, Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, C. J.1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning[A]. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:123-31.
Fillmore, C. J.1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language [A]. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech [C]. New York: New York Academy of Sciences,20-32.
Fillmore, C. J.1982. Frame semantics [A]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, the Linguistic Society of Korea,111-137. Seoul: Hanshin. Reprinted in Geeraerts, D. (ed). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings [C],373-400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2006.
Fillmore, C.1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica, Vol.6 (2): 222-254.
Fillmore, C.2009. Frames and Constructions: Putting Them Together. Presentation at Frames and Constructions, Berkeley, California. July 2009.
Fillmore, C. J.& Atkins, B. T.1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of risk and its neighbors [A]. In Lehrer, A.& Kittay, E. F. (eds.) Frame, Fields, and Contrast: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization [C]. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,75-102.
Fillmore, C. J.& Petruck, R. L.2003. FrameNet Glossary[J]. International Journal of Lexicography, 2003 (3):359-361.
Fillmore, C. J.1977. Topics in lexical semantics[A]. In Cole, R. W. (ed.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory[C]. Bloomington, London:Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J., C. R. Johnson & R. L. Miriam.2003. Background to FrameNet[J]. International Journal of Lexicography,2003(3):235-250.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P.& M. K. O'Connor.1988. Regularity and idiomaticity: the case of let alone[J], Language,64(3):501-38.
Flowerdew, J. (ed.).2002. Academic Discourse[C]. London:Longman
Fodor, J. A.1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, M. H.2003. Poetry and the scope of metaphor:Toward a cognitive theory of literature [A]. In Bacelona, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,253-282.
Fries, P.1983. On the status of theme in English:Arguments from discourse[A]. In Janos S. Petofi & E. Sozer (eds), Micro and Macro Connexity of Text.6,1,1-38. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Gardenfors, P.1999. Some tenets of Cognitive Semantics[A]. Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition[C]. In Allwood, J.& Gardenfors, P. (eds.),19-36. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Gavins, J.& Steen, D (eds.).2003. Cognitive poetics in practice[C]. London: Routledge.
Gernsbacher, M. A.& Givon, T.1995. Coherence in Spontaneous Text[C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. W.& Colston, H.1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,6(4):347-78.
Gibbs, R.W.1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R.1997. Discourse Coherence and Theory of Relevance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,27 (1):17-34.
Giora, R.1998. Discourse Coherence as an Independent Notion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1): 75-86.
Givon, T.1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind [A]. In Gersbacher, M.& Givon, T. (eds.) Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C]. Amsterdam:Benjamins,59-116.
Givon, T.2005. Context as Other Minds:the Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goffman, E.1974. Frame Analysis:An Essay on the Organization of Experience[M]. New York: Harper and Row.
Goffman, E.1981. Forms of Talk [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goldberg, A.& Suttle, L.2010. Construction Grammar [J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Cognitive Science,1 (4):468-477.
Goldberg, A.1995. Construction:Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gonzalez, D.2000. Story Grammar and Oral Influency[J]. Journal of the Imagination in Language and Teaching 5. Retrieved July 2,2009 from http://www.njcu.edu/cill/vo15/Gonzalez.html.
Graesser, A. C.,Millis, K. K.,& Zwaan. R. A.1997. Discourse comprehension[J]. Annual Review of Psychology,48:163-89.
Grice, H. P.1975. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics [C]. vol.3. New York: Academic,41-58.
Gumperz, J.1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Hasan, R.1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Hasan, R.1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Yallop, C.2009. Lexicology: A Short Introduction[M]北京：世界图书出版公司。
Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M].3rd edition, revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. London:Arnold.
Halmari, H.& Ostman, J-O.2001. The soft-spoken, angelic pickax killer: the notion of discourse pattern in controversial news reporting[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,33:805-823.
Hasan, R.1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony [A]. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding Reading Comprehension [C]. Delaware: International Reading Association.181-219.
Hatim, B.& Mason, I.1997. The Translator as Communicator [M]. London: Routledge.
Hobbs, J. R.1979. Coherence and coreference [J]. Cognitive Science,45(3):67-90.
Hobbs, J. R.1983. Overview of a formal theory of discourse interpretation [J]. Text,3(3):241-246.
Hobbs, J. R.1990. Literature and Cognition [L]. CSLI Lecture Notes,21. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Hobbs, J. R.1993. Intention, information, and structure in discourse[A]. In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Burning Issues in Discourse[C],41-66, Maratea, Italy.
Hoey, M.1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K.2004. Genre and Second Language Writing[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jackendoff, R.2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, H.& E. Z. Amevela.2000. Words, Meaning and Vocabulary:An Introduction to English Lexicology[M]. London:Cassel.
Jaszczolt, K. M.2002. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse[M]. Pearson Education Limited.
Johns, A. M.2008. Genre awareness for the novice academic student: an ongoing quest[J]. Language Teaching,41(2):237-252.
Johnson, C. R., et al.2001. The FrameNet Project:Tools for Lexicon Buildings (Version 0.7,January 2001). Berkeley, CA:International Computer Science Institute.
Johnson, M.1987. The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Johnson-Laird, P.1983. Mental Models[M]. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Kehler, A.2005. Discourse Coherence [A]. In Horn, L. R.& Ward, G.(eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Blackwell Reference Online.28 December 2007. http.//www.Blackwell reference com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631225485chunkg978063122548513.
Kinneavy, J. L.1971. A Theory of Discourse: the Aim of Discourse[M].Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Kintsch, W.& van Dijk, T. A.1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production [J]. Psychological Review,85.
Kittay, E. F.1987. Metaphor, its cognitive force and linguistic structure [C].Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kittay, E. R,& Lehrer, A.1992. Introduction[C]. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,1-18.
Knoblauch, C. H.1979. Coherence Betrayed:Samuel Johnson and the "Prose of the World"[J]. Boundary 2. vol.7 No.2. Revisions of the Anglo-American Tradition: Part Ⅰ (Winter):235-260.
Koch, P.1999. Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation [A]. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (eds),139-167.
Konerding, K. P.1993. Frames und lexikalisches Bedeutungswissen[M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Kovecses & Radden.1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view[J]. Cognitive linguistics, 37-77.
Kovecses, Z.2002. Metaphor: A Practical Instruction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980/2003. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.2004. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate[M]. Chelsea Green Publishing
Lamb, S.1999. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lamb, S.2004. Neurocognitive structure in the interplay of language and thought[A]. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), Language and reality[C],254-276. London: Continuum.
Langacker, R. W.1987a. Nouns and verbs [J]. Language,63(1):53-94.
Langacker, R. W.1987b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1:theoretical prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.2: Descriptive application [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-points constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1):1-38.
Langacker, R. W.2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 12(1):143-88.
Lee, D.1997. Frame Conflicts and Competing Construals in Family Argument [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,27:339-360.
Leech, G N.1981. semantics [M]. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Leech, G N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Longacre, R. E.1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit[A]. In Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12[C]. New York: Academic Press,115-134.
Longacre, R. E.1983. The Grammar ofDiscourse[M]. New York: Plenum Press.
Lopez, A. M. R..2002. Applying Frame Semantics to Translation: A Practical Example [J]. Meta, vol.47 (3):312-350.
Lyons, J.1995. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mandler, J. M.& Johnson, N. S.1977. Remembrance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and Recall[J]. Cognitive Psychology,9:111-151.
Mann, W. C.& Thompson, S. A.1986. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Describe and Construction of Text Structure. ISI Reprint Series (ISI/RS-86-174).
Mann, W. C.& Thompson, S. A.1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization[A]. USC Information Science Institute. Technical Report 1 (SI/RS-87-190).
Martin, J.2009. Genre and Language Learning:A Social Semiotic Perspective[J]. Linguistics and Educations,20(1):10-21.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D.2003. Working with Discourse:meaning beyond the clause [M]. London /New York:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.1992/2004. English Text-System and Structure [M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Mey, J. L.2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction[M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Miller, C. R.1984. Genre as Social Action[J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,70:151-167.
Minsky, M.1975. Frame system theory [A], In P. N. Johnson-Laird, P. C. Wason (eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,355-376.
Minsky, M.1977. Frame Theory[C]. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (eds.), Thinking:Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nerlich, B.& Clarke, D. D.2000. Semantic fields and frames:Historical explorations of the interface between language, action, and cognition [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,32:125-150.
Nida, E. A & C. R. Taber.2004. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nuyts, J.2006. Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics [A]. In Geeraert et al. (eds) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,543-558.
Oakley, T.2007. Image schemas[A]. In Geeraerts, D.& Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C],214-235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ostman, J. O.1999. Coherence through Understanding through Discourse Patterns:Focus on News Reports[A]. In Bublitz, W. et al. (eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse:How to Create it and How to Describe it[C],77-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ostman, J. O.2005. Construction Discourse: A Prolegomenon [A]. In Ostman, J. O.& Fried, M. (eds), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [C],121-144. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ostman, J. O.& Fried, M. (eds). Forthcoming. Pragmatics in Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Paltridge, B.1997. Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings [M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Paltridge, B.2001. Genre and the Language Teaching Classroom[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pan, Z.& Kosicki, G. M.1993. Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse [J]. Political Communication, Vol.10:55-75.
Panther, K. U.& Thornburg, L. L.2003. On the Nature of Conceptual Metonymy [A]. In Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. L. (eds.) Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1-20.
Panther, K. U.& Thornburg, L. L..1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30:755-769.
Peirce, C. S.1960. Collected Works of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol.2., Bristol, England, Thoemmes Press.
Piaget, J.1969. The Mechanisms of Perception[M]. London:Routledge & K. Paul.
Pike, K. L.1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Ponterotto, D.2003. The cohesive role cognitive metaphor in discourse and conversation [A]. In: Barcelona, A.(ed). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [c]. Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter,283-298.
Renkema, J.1993. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.& Baicchi, A.2007. Elocutionary Constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization[A]. In Kecskes, I.& L. Horn (eds.) Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rumelhart, D.1975. Notes on a schema for stories[A]. In Bobrow, D.& Collins, A. (eds.), Representation and understanding[C],211-236. New York:Academic Press.
Russell, D. R.1997. Rethinking genre in school & society: An activity theory analysis[J]. Written Communication,14:504-54.
Saeed, J. I.1997. Semantics [M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Samet, J.& Schank, R.1984. Coherence and connectivity [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(1):57-82.
Sanders, J.& Redeker, G.1996. Perspective and the Representation of Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse [A]. In Fauconnier, G.& Sweetser, E. (eds.),290-317.
Sanders, T.& Maat, H. P.2006. Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches [A]. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics[C], Vol.4:591-95. Elsevier.
Sanders, T.& Sanders, J.2006. Text and Text Analysis [A]. In Brown, K. et al. (eds.). Encyclopedia of language and Linguistics [C], Vol.12, (2nd ed.). London:Elsevier,597-607.
Sanders, T.& Spooren, W.2007. Discourse and text structure [A]. In Geeraerts, D.& Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 916-941.
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., Spooren, W.& Noordman, L.1993. Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representations [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:93-133.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W.& Noordman, L.1992. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations [J]. Discourse Processes 15:1-35.
Sandig, B.1996. Sprachliche Perspektivierung und perspektivierende Stile[J]. Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik,102:36-63.
Sanford, A.2005. Coherence: Psycholinguistic Approach [A]. In Brown, K. et al (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics [C]. Vol.4.(2nd ed.). Amsterdam:Elsevier,586-591.
Sanford, A. J.& Garrod, S. C.1981. Understanding Written Language [M]. Chicheter:Wiley.
Sanford, A. J.& Start, P.2002. Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,6 (9):382-386.
Sapir, E.1949. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. New York:Harcourt Brace.
Saussure, F. de.2001. Course in General Linguistics [M]北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Schank, R. C.& Abelson, R. P.1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding:an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures [M]. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, D.1987/2007. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D.1988. Conversation Analysis[A]. In Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics:The Cambridge Survey Ⅳ. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,251-276.
Searle, J. R.1975. Indirect Speech Acts[A]. InCole, P.& J. L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3:Speech Act. New York: Academic Press,59-82.
Searle, J. R.1983. Intentionality[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J.1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation: Describing English language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Smith, N.& Wilson, D.1992. Introduction to Relevance Theory[J]. Lingua,87(1):1-10.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steinhart, E. C.2001. The Logic of Metaphor [M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stern, J.2000. Metaphor in Context [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Stockwell, P.2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction[M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Stubbs, M.1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J.1990. Genre Analysis:English in academic and research setting [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.2004. Research Genres: explorations and applications [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.1996. The windowing of attention in language [A]. In Shibatani, M.& Thompson, S. A. (eds), Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,235-87.
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol.1) [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Tankard, Jr., J. W.2001. The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing. In Reese, S. D., Grandy, O.,& Grant, Jr. A. E. (eds.), Framing Public Life:Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,95-106
Tannen, D.& Wallat, C.1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction:examples from a medial examination interview [A]. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Framing in Discourse [C]. New York /Oxford:Oxford University Press,57-113.
Tannen, D.1984. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse [M]. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tannen, D.1986. Frames Revisited:Frame Semantics Ⅱ[J]. Quaderni di Semantica,7 (1):106-109.
Tannen, D.1993. What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations [A]. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Framing in Discourse [C]. New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press,14-56.
Taylor, J.1989/1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford University Press.
Thagard, P.2000. Coherence in Thought and Action [M]. MIT Press.
Thompson, S. A.& B. A. Fox.2002. Construction in conversation: the case of relative clauses in English[A]. Presentation at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar at Helsinki, September 6-8,2002.
Thorndyke, P. W.1977. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse[A]. Cognitive Psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press,121-152.
Tomlin, R. S., Forrest, L., Pu, M. M.,& Kim, M. H.1997. Discourse semantics[A].In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process [C],63-111. London:Sage.
Turner, M.1996. The Literary Mind [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unger, C.2006. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence: the Pragmatics of Discourse Type[M]. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H. J.2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London:Longman,
van Dijk, T. A.& Kintsch, W.1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension[M]. New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A.1977. Text and Context [M]. London:Longman.
van Dijk, T. A.1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Studies of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition [M]. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Dijk, T. A.1997. Discourse as social interaction[A]. In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction 2[C]. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun A.1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach [M]. London: Sage Publication.
Virtanen, T.1993. Discourse Functions of Adverbial Placement in English[M]. Abo Academic University Press.
Vygotsky, L.1986. Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Warren, B.1999. Aspects of referential metonymy [A]. In Panther, K.U.& Radden, G (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins,121-135.
Werth, P.1999. Text Worlds:Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse [M]. London: Longman.
Whorf, B. L.1956. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writing of Benjamin Lee Whorf [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Widdowson, H. G.1985. Learning Purpose and Language Use[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G 2004. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis[M]. Blackwell Publishing.
Widdowson, H.G 1978. Teaching Language as Communication [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D.1994. Relevance and Understanding[A]. In G. Brown et al. (eds), Language and Understanding[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,37-60.
Wilson, D.1998. Discourse, Coherence, and Relevance: A Reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998 (3).
Winterowd, W. R.1970. The Grammar of Coherence[J]. College English, No.31:828-835.
Wittgenstein, L.1958. Philosophical Investigations [M]. Trans.by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: MacMillan.
Wood, L. A.& Kroger, R. O.2000. Doing Discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text [M].Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi:Sage.
Yu, N.1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese [M].Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company.
Yule, G.1996. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
陈骙.1962.文则[A].载于郭绍虞、罗根泽主编《中国古典文学理论批评选辑》[C].北京：人民文学出版社。
陈平.1991[1987].汉语零形回指的话语分析[A].载于《现代语言学研究：理论、方法与事实》.重庆：重庆出版社,181-209页。
陈光磊.1994/2001.汉语词法论[M].上海：学林出版社。
陈海庆.2005.语篇连贯：言语行为模式[D].东北师范大学。
陈望道.2006.修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团。
陈新仁.1999.广告用语中的语用预设[J].修辞学习,第1期：第38-39页。
陈中平、白解红.2011.框架、场景与视角：Fillmore语义理论认知观探源[J]。外语教学与研究,第5期：665-675页。
陈宗明.2007.智慧人生：日常推理之谜[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
程琪龙.2001.认知语言学概论——语言的神经认知基础[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
程琪龙.2006.概念框架和认知[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
程晓堂.2005.基于功能语言学的语篇连贯研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
崔梅、李红梅.2001.言语交流的连贯因素研究[M].昆明：云南民族出版社。
邓静.2010.翻译研究的框架语义学视角评析[J]。外语教学与研究,第1期：66-71页。
董天策、徐宁.2005.从“连战访问大陆”看市场化报纸的时政报道—香港《东方日报》与国民党《中央日报》报道框架的比较分析[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),第6期：232-235页。
董为光.2004.汉语词义发展基本类型[M].武汉：华中科技大学出版社。
杜世洪.2008.脉辨：话语互动的理论基础[D].华东师范大学博士论文。
范开泰、张亚军.2000.现代汉语语法分析[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社。
费尔默.2002. “格”辨[M],胡明扬译.北京：商务印书馆。
冯晓虎.1999.作为篇章连贯手段的概念隐喻[D].北京外国语大学博士论文。
冯晓虎.2004.隐喻：思维的基础,篇章的框架[M].北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社。
傅菁菁、李天贤.2009.拟误”格手机短信幽默效应的认知探析[J].昆明学院学报,第5期： 122-125页。
傅勇林.2000.文脉、意脉与语篇阐释——Ha11iday与刘熙载篇章理论之比较研究[J].外语与外语教学,第1期：19-26页。
伽达默尔.2007a/b.真理与方法(上、下卷)[M],洪汉鼎译.北京：商务印书馆。
韩仲谦.2008.《白杨礼赞》认知解读[J].宿州学院学报,第1期：63-67页。
黑格尔.1986.小逻辑[M].北京：商务印书馆。
洪明.2009.向心理论的局部连贯模式与二语写作质量评价[D]。上海外国语大学博士论文。
洪堡特.1999.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M],姚小平译。北京：商务印书馆。
胡春阳.2007.话语分析：传播研究的新途径[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄.1989.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社。
胡壮麟.1994.语篇的衔接和连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟.1995.当代语言理论与应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
胡壮麟.1996.有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考[J].外国语,第1期：1-8页。
黄 旦.2005.传者图像：新闻专业主义的构建与消解[M].复旦大学出版社。
黄国文.1988.语篇分析概要[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社。
黄国文.1998.语篇分析的理论与实践[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄国文.2001.语篇分析的理论与实践—广告语篇研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄惠萍.2003.媒介框架之预设判准效应与阅听人的政策评估——以核四案为例[J],原载台湾《新闻学研究》第77期。2010年6月18日下载于《传媒学术网》http://academic. mediachina.net)
姜望琪.2003.当代语用学[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
康 德.2004.纯粹理性批判[M].李秋零等译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
李福印.2007,意象图式理论[J].四川外语学院学报.第1期：80-85页。
李更生.2006.语篇连贯的多视角研究[J].武汉科技学院学报,第9期：102-105页。
李良沛.2006.隐喻系统性及其对语篇连贯的作用[D].四川大学.
李天贤、庞继贤.2008.从构式语法看公式化语言的认知机制[J].西安电子科技大学学报(社科版),第1期：141-146页。
李天紫.2007.从语篇层次看概念隐喻的认知作用[J].太原大学教育学院学报,第1期：61-64页。
李勇忠.2004.言语行为转喻与话语的深层连贯[J].外语教学,第3期：14-18页。
李佐文.2004.话语标记与语篇连贯研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
廖秋忠.1992.廖秋忠文集[C].北京：北京语言学院出版社。
廖艳君.2004.新闻报道的语言学研究：消息语篇的衔接和连贯[D].湖南师范大学博士论文。
刘鸿绅.1987.篇章语言学的发展及研究领域(上)[J].国外语言学,第3期：124-130,144页。
刘礼进.2002.再论衔接与连贯[J].福建外语,第1期：6-11页。
刘丽华、李明君.2008.意象图式理论研究的进展与前沿[M].哈尔滨工业大学学报,第4期：110-117页。
陆国强.1999.现代英语词汇学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
吕叔湘.1979/2002.汉语语法分析问题[A].载于黄国营编《吕叔湘选集》[C],第120-200页。长春：东北师范大学出版社。
孟建刚.2001.关联性与会话语篇连贯研究[J].外语学刊,第2期：54-59页。
苗兴伟.1998.论街接与连贯的关系[J].外国语,第4期：44-49页。
苗兴伟.1999.关联理论对语篇连贯的解释力[J].外语教学与研究,第3期：9-14页。
潘文国.2007.英汉语篇对比与中国的文章之学[J].外语教学,第5期：1-5页。
庞继贤、叶宁.2011.西方语类理论比较分析[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),第41卷,第2期：160-168页。
庞继贤.1993.“语篇体裁分析”理论评析[J].浙江大学学报,第2期：105—111页。
庞继贤.1995.介绍一本实用语篇分析的专著[J].外语教学与研究,第3期：73—74页。
庞继贤.2009.《话语研究新进展》介绍[J].外语教学与研究,第1期：77—79页。
彭家玉.2002.语篇连贯研究的新视角[J].西安外国语学院学报,第2期：13-15页。
钱乃荣.2001.现代汉语(修订版)[M].南京：江苏教育出版社。
钱汝敏.2001.篇章语用学概论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
屈承熹.2006.汉语篇章语法[M],潘文国等译.北京：北京语言大学出版社。
任绍曾.2006.概念隐喻和语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究,第2期：91-100页。
任绍曾.2008.概念隐喻与语篇—对体现概念隐喻的语篇的多维分析[J].外语教学与研究,第2期：83-92页。
沈家煊.1995. “有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,第5期。载于沈家煊(2006)《认知与汉语语法研究》[C],第2-29页。北京：商务印书馆。
史友为.2004.汉语语篇连贯性问题概析[J].修辞学习,第5期：1-10页。
束定芳.2008.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
宋柔.2000.现代汉语书面语中跨小句的句法关系.香港城市大学讲座稿。
宋均芬.2002.汉语词汇学[M].北京：知识出版社。
孙常叙.2006.汉语词汇[M].北京：商务印书馆。
王甦、汪安圣.1992.认知心理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社。
王轩.2006. 中国三家日报关于美伊战争报道的新闻框架分析[A].传媒网学术网(http://academic.mediachina.net)
王寅.2005.语篇连贯的认知世界分析方法——体验哲学和认知语言学对语篇连贯性的解释[J].外语学刊,第4期：16-23页。
王寅.2006.认知语言学与语篇连贯研究——八论语言的体验性：语篇连贯的认知基础[J],外语研究,第6期：6-12页。
王寅.2007.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王东风.1999.文学翻译的多维连贯性研究[D].北京大学博士论文。
王全智.2002.也谈衔接、连贯与关联[J].外语学刊,第2期：77-79页。
王文斌、林波.2003.英语幽默言语的认知语用探究：兼论RT与CB的互补性[J].外国语,第4期：32-38页。
王文斌.2001.从两首唐诗的英译看文学翻译中的未定性和具体化[J].中国翻译,第2期：52-54页。
王文斌.2004.幽默言语解读的在线认知机制阐释[J],宁波大学学报(人文科学版),第2期：6-9,22页。
王文斌.2005.英语词法概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王文斌.2007.隐喻的认知构建与解读[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
维特根斯坦,2003.逻辑哲学论[A]。载于《维特根斯坦全集》(第一卷),陈启伟译。石家庄：河北教育出版社,第185-264页。
魏在江.2004.英汉语篇连贯认知对比与研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文。
魏在江.2005.语篇连贯的元语用探析[J].外语教学,第6期：19-24页。
魏在江.2006.在继承中探索：谈《文心雕龙》的语篇思想[J].中国外语,第4期：50-54页。
魏在江.2007a.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社。
魏在江.2007b.概念转喻与语篇衔接：各派分歧、理论背景及实验支持[J].外国语,第2期： 29-36。
魏在江.2008.隐喻与文学语篇的构建[J].外语与外语教学,第3期：13-16页。
文旭、叶狂.2003.概念隐喻的系统性和连贯性[J].外语学刊,第3期：1-7页。
沃尔夫,2001.语言、心理与现实[A]。载于《论语言、思维和现实：沃尔夫文集》,高一虹等译。长沙：湖南教育出版社,第249-277页。
吴启主,2000.汉语构件语法语篇学[M].长沙：岳麓书社。
谢毅.1990.语篇的连贯性[D].复旦大学博士论文。
熊学亮.1996.话语的宏观结构[J].外语教学与研究,第1期：19-23页。
休谟.1997.人类理解研究[M].关文运译.北京：商务印书馆。
徐健.2004.衔接、语篇组织和连贯[D].复旦大学博士论文。
徐珺.2002.《儒林外史》英汉语篇对比研究——系统功能语言学的尝试[J].外语与外语教学,第12期：1-5页。
徐珺.2003.功能语法用于《儒林外史》汉英语篇的研究：情景语境观[J].现代外语,第2期：128-134页。
徐珺.2004.上下文语境研究：《儒林外史》英汉对比研究[J].外语学刊,第1期：60-66页。
徐赳赳.2003.现代汉语篇章回指研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社。
徐赳赳.2010.现代汉语篇章语言学[M].北京：商务印书馆。
杨才英.2006.新闻访谈中的人际连贯研究[D].山东大学博士论文。
杨斐翡.2004.主位推进与语篇连贯[J].西安外国语学院学报,第4期：7-10页。
杨自俭.1994.翻译新论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社。
于屏方.2007.动作义位释义的框架模式研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社。
余东.2002.衔接、连贯与翻译之关系研究[D].南开大学博士论文。
张玮.2008.隐喻视角下的语篇连贯研究[D].山东大学博士论文。
张德禄,2000.论语篇连贯[J],外语教学与研究,第2期：103-109页。
张德禄、刘汝山.2003.语篇连贯与街接理论的发展及应用[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张德禄.1989.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社。
张德禄.1992.语篇连贯与信息结构[J].外语研究,第3期：7-11,26页。
张德禄.1994.论语篇连贯的条件[J].现代外语,第1期：19-24页。
张德禄.1999.语篇连贯纵横谈[J].外国语,第6期：24-31页。
张德禄.2006.语篇连贯的宏观原则[J].外语与外语教学,第10期：7-10,13页。
张洪忠.2001.大众传播学的议程设置理论与框架理论关系探讨[J],西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版,第10期：88-91页。
张建科.2003.合成空间理论对语篇连贯的动态阐释[D].曲阜师范大学硕士论文。
张克旭、臧海群、韩纲、何婕.1999.从媒介现实到受众现实——从框架理论看电视报道我驻南使馆被炸事件[J].新闻与传播研究,第2期：2-10页。
张新杰、邱天河.2009.语篇连贯研究综述[J].外语与外语教学,第10期：18-22页。
赵霞、刘佳.2008.认知语言学对语篇连贯研究的启示[J].江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版),第3期：75-79页。
郑贵友.2002.汉语篇章语言学[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社。
周红云.2006.衔接在功能语篇分析中的应用[J].外语与外语教学,第10期：22-24页。
周锰珍.2006.认知经济原则与投资指南翻译的信息量调控[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,第4期：76-79页。
朱永生、苗兴伟.2000.语用预设的语篇功能[J].外国语,第3期：25-30页。
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。
朱永生.1995.主位推进模式与语篇分析[J].外语教学与研究,第3期：6-12页。
Al-Sharafi, A. G. M.2004. Textual Metonymy: A Semiotic Approach [M]. London:Palgrave.
Andor, J.2010. Discussing frame semantics:The state of the art—An interview with Charles Fillmore [J]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,8(1):157-176.
Ariel, M.1990. Accessing Noun Phrase antecedents[M]. London: Routledge.
Auer, P.2000. On constructions turning into constructions: From Pragmatics to Grammar in German conditions. Presentation on the panel on pragmatic aspect on Frame Semantics and Construction Grammar at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest, July 9-14,2000.
Austin, J. L.1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Barcelona, A. (ed.).2003a. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A.2003b. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics:an analysis and a few modest proposals [C]. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. U. Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Gunter Radden,223-255. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Barcelona, A.2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains [A]. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C],313-352. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barlett.1932. Remembering[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L. W.1992. Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual fields[A]. In Lehrer, A. and Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization[C],21-74. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Barsalou, L. W.1999. Perceptual symbol systems[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22,577-609.
Bazerman, C.2004. Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems:How Texts Organize Activity and People[C], In Bazerman, C & P. Prior (eds.) What Texts Do and How they Do It. Erlbaum.
Bednarek, M. A.2005. Frame revisited—the coherence-inducing function of frames [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,37:685-705.
Bhatia, V. K.1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M]. London: Longman.
Billig, M.1987. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. L.1992. Understanding Utterance [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bloomfield, L.1933. Language[M]. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Brown, G.& Yule, G 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bublitz, W.1999. Introduction:views of coherence [A]. In Bublitz, U. Lenk & Ventola (eds). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse [C],1-7. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cacciari, C.1998. Why Do We Speak Metaphorically? Reflections on the Functions of Metaphor in Discourse and Reasoning [A]. In A. N. Katz, C. Cacciari, R. W. Gibbs,&. M. Turner (Eds). Figurative Language and Thought [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,119-157.
Campell, K. S.1995. Continuity and Cohesion: Theoretical Foundation of Document Design [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaurn Association.
Carrel, P. L.1982. Cohesion is not coherence[J]. TESOL Quarterly,16:479-488.
Carroll, D. W.2000. Psychology of Language北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
Christie, F.1999. Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and social processes[C]. London: Cassell.
Cienki, A.1997. Some properties and groupings of image schemas[A]. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong, & Eve Sweetser (eds.) Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning: Proceedings of the bi-annual ICLA meeting in Albaquerque July 1995[C],3-15. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Clark, H. H.1996. Using Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clausner, T. C.& Croft, W.1999. Domains and Image Schemas [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1999(10): 1-31.
Coe, R.2002:The new rhetoric of genre: Writing political brief. In A. M. Johns (ed.), Genre in the Classroom. London:Lawrence Erbaum,197-207.
Cook, G. 1989. Language Teaching Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbett, J.2005. Genre and Genre Analysis[A]. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics[C], Vol.6: 26-32. Elsevier.
Cornish, F.1996. Coherence—the Lifeblood of Anaphora [A]. In W. de Mulder & L. Tasmowski (eds), Coherence and Anaphora[C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins,37-54.
Coulson, S.2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.& Cruse, D. A.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.1993. The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (4):335-370.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.2009. Connecting frames and constructions:a case study of eat and feed [J]. Construcitons and Frames 1(1):7-28.
Cruse, D. A.1986. Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A.2004. Meaning in Language[M]. London: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D.1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D.1991. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [Z]. London:Blackwell.
Danes, F.1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text[C]. In F. Danes, ed. Papers on Functional Sentence Persepctive. Prague: Academia/The Hague: Mouton:106-128.
Danesi, M.2000. Semiotics in Language Educaiton [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Danesi, M.2004. Metaphor and conceptual productivity: Results of a pilot project [J].Semiotica 148-1/4: 399-411.
de Beaugrande, R.& Dressler, W. U.1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. London: Longman.
de Vega, M.1984. Introduccion a laPsicologia Cognitiva [M]. Madrid: Alianza.
Dirven R.& Radden, G 1987. Fillmore's Case Grammar: A Reader. Heidelberg:J Groos.
Eggins, S.1994. An Introduction to Functional Systemic Linguistics[M]. London: Pinter Publishers.
Enkvist, N. E.1978. Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence [A]. In J. O. Ostman (ed.). Cohesion and Semantics [C]. Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi Foundation.
Ensink, T.& Sauer, C.2003. Social-functional and cognitive approaches to discourse interpretation: the role of frame and perspective [A]. In Ensink, T (ed.). Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1-21.
Evans, V.& Green, M.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V.2009. Semantic representation in LCCM Theory[A]. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics[C],27-55.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power[M]. London:Longman.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis [M]. London /New York:Longman.
Fauconnier, G.& Sweetser, E.1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fauconnier, G & Turner, M.1998. Conceptual integration networks [J]. Cognitive Science 22 (2): 133-187.
Fauconnier, G.& Turner, M.2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G 1998. Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration [A]. In Michael, T. (ed.) The New Psychology of Language [C]. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Fillmore, C. J.& Baker, C. F.2000. FrameNet: Frame Semantics Meets the Corps. Poster Session at the Linguistic Society of America. January 2000.
Fillmore, C. J.& Kay, P.1996. Construction Grammar Coursebook, Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, C. J.1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning[A]. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:123-31.
Fillmore, C. J.1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language [A]. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech [C]. New York: New York Academy of Sciences,20-32.
Fillmore, C. J.1982. Frame semantics [A]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, the Linguistic Society of Korea,111-137. Seoul: Hanshin. Reprinted in Geeraerts, D. (ed). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings [C],373-400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2006.
Fillmore, C.1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica, Vol.6 (2): 222-254.
Fillmore, C.2009. Frames and Constructions: Putting Them Together. Presentation at Frames and Constructions, Berkeley, California. July 2009.
Fillmore, C. J.& Atkins, B. T.1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of risk and its neighbors [A]. In Lehrer, A.& Kittay, E. F. (eds.) Frame, Fields, and Contrast: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization [C]. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,75-102.
Fillmore, C. J.& Petruck, R. L.2003. FrameNet Glossary[J]. International Journal of Lexicography, 2003 (3):359-361.
Fillmore, C. J.1977. Topics in lexical semantics[A]. In Cole, R. W. (ed.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory[C]. Bloomington, London:Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J., C. R. Johnson & R. L. Miriam.2003. Background to FrameNet[J]. International Journal of Lexicography,2003(3):235-250.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P.& M. K. O'Connor.1988. Regularity and idiomaticity: the case of let alone[J], Language,64(3):501-38.
Flowerdew, J. (ed.).2002. Academic Discourse[C]. London:Longman
Fodor, J. A.1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, M. H.2003. Poetry and the scope of metaphor:Toward a cognitive theory of literature [A]. In Bacelona, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,253-282.
Fries, P.1983. On the status of theme in English:Arguments from discourse[A]. In Janos S. Petofi & E. Sozer (eds), Micro and Macro Connexity of Text.6,1,1-38. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Gardenfors, P.1999. Some tenets of Cognitive Semantics[A]. Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition[C]. In Allwood, J.& Gardenfors, P. (eds.),19-36. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Gavins, J.& Steen, D (eds.).2003. Cognitive poetics in practice[C]. London: Routledge.
Gernsbacher, M. A.& Givon, T.1995. Coherence in Spontaneous Text[C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. W.& Colston, H.1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,6(4):347-78.
Gibbs, R.W.1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R.1997. Discourse Coherence and Theory of Relevance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,27 (1):17-34.
Giora, R.1998. Discourse Coherence as an Independent Notion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1): 75-86.
Givon, T.1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind [A]. In Gersbacher, M.& Givon, T. (eds.) Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C]. Amsterdam:Benjamins,59-116.
Givon, T.2005. Context as Other Minds:the Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goffman, E.1974. Frame Analysis:An Essay on the Organization of Experience[M]. New York: Harper and Row.
Goffman, E.1981. Forms of Talk [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goldberg, A.& Suttle, L.2010. Construction Grammar [J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Cognitive Science,1 (4):468-477.
Goldberg, A.1995. Construction:Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gonzalez, D.2000. Story Grammar and Oral Influency[J]. Journal of the Imagination in Language and Teaching 5. Retrieved July 2,2009 from http://www.njcu.edu/cill/vo15/Gonzalez.html.
Graesser, A. C.,Millis, K. K.,& Zwaan. R. A.1997. Discourse comprehension[J]. Annual Review of Psychology,48:163-89.
Grice, H. P.1975. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics [C]. vol.3. New York: Academic,41-58.
Gumperz, J.1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Hasan, R.1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Hasan, R.1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Yallop, C.2009. Lexicology: A Short Introduction[M]北京：世界图书出版公司。
Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M].3rd edition, revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. London:Arnold.
Halmari, H.& Ostman, J-O.2001. The soft-spoken, angelic pickax killer: the notion of discourse pattern in controversial news reporting[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,33:805-823.
Hasan, R.1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony [A]. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding Reading Comprehension [C]. Delaware: International Reading Association.181-219.
Hatim, B.& Mason, I.1997. The Translator as Communicator [M]. London: Routledge.
Hobbs, J. R.1979. Coherence and coreference [J]. Cognitive Science,45(3):67-90.
Hobbs, J. R.1983. Overview of a formal theory of discourse interpretation [J]. Text,3(3):241-246.
Hobbs, J. R.1990. Literature and Cognition [L]. CSLI Lecture Notes,21. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Hobbs, J. R.1993. Intention, information, and structure in discourse[A]. In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Burning Issues in Discourse[C],41-66, Maratea, Italy.
Hoey, M.1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K.2004. Genre and Second Language Writing[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jackendoff, R.2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, H.& E. Z. Amevela.2000. Words, Meaning and Vocabulary:An Introduction to English Lexicology[M]. London:Cassel.
Jaszczolt, K. M.2002. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse[M]. Pearson Education Limited.
Johns, A. M.2008. Genre awareness for the novice academic student: an ongoing quest[J]. Language Teaching,41(2):237-252.
Johnson, C. R., et al.2001. The FrameNet Project:Tools for Lexicon Buildings (Version 0.7,January 2001). Berkeley, CA:International Computer Science Institute.
Johnson, M.1987. The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Johnson-Laird, P.1983. Mental Models[M]. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Kehler, A.2005. Discourse Coherence [A]. In Horn, L. R.& Ward, G.(eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Blackwell Reference Online.28 December 2007. http.//www.Blackwell reference com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631225485chunkg978063122548513.
Kinneavy, J. L.1971. A Theory of Discourse: the Aim of Discourse[M].Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Kintsch, W.& van Dijk, T. A.1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production [J]. Psychological Review,85.
Kittay, E. F.1987. Metaphor, its cognitive force and linguistic structure [C].Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kittay, E. R,& Lehrer, A.1992. Introduction[C]. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,1-18.
Knoblauch, C. H.1979. Coherence Betrayed:Samuel Johnson and the "Prose of the World"[J]. Boundary 2. vol.7 No.2. Revisions of the Anglo-American Tradition: Part Ⅰ (Winter):235-260.
Koch, P.1999. Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation [A]. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (eds),139-167.
Konerding, K. P.1993. Frames und lexikalisches Bedeutungswissen[M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Kovecses & Radden.1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view[J]. Cognitive linguistics, 37-77.
Kovecses, Z.2002. Metaphor: A Practical Instruction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980/2003. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.2004. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate[M]. Chelsea Green Publishing
Lamb, S.1999. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lamb, S.2004. Neurocognitive structure in the interplay of language and thought[A]. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), Language and reality[C],254-276. London: Continuum.
Langacker, R. W.1987a. Nouns and verbs [J]. Language,63(1):53-94.
Langacker, R. W.1987b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1:theoretical prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.2: Descriptive application [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-points constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1):1-38.
Langacker, R. W.2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 12(1):143-88.
Lee, D.1997. Frame Conflicts and Competing Construals in Family Argument [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,27:339-360.
Leech, G N.1981. semantics [M]. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Leech, G N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Longacre, R. E.1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit[A]. In Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12[C]. New York: Academic Press,115-134.
Longacre, R. E.1983. The Grammar ofDiscourse[M]. New York: Plenum Press.
Lopez, A. M. R..2002. Applying Frame Semantics to Translation: A Practical Example [J]. Meta, vol.47 (3):312-350.
Lyons, J.1995. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mandler, J. M.& Johnson, N. S.1977. Remembrance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and Recall[J]. Cognitive Psychology,9:111-151.
Mann, W. C.& Thompson, S. A.1986. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Describe and Construction of Text Structure. ISI Reprint Series (ISI/RS-86-174).
Mann, W. C.& Thompson, S. A.1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization[A]. USC Information Science Institute. Technical Report 1 (SI/RS-87-190).
Martin, J.2009. Genre and Language Learning:A Social Semiotic Perspective[J]. Linguistics and Educations,20(1):10-21.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D.2003. Working with Discourse:meaning beyond the clause [M]. London /New York:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.1992/2004. English Text-System and Structure [M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Mey, J. L.2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction[M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Miller, C. R.1984. Genre as Social Action[J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,70:151-167.
Minsky, M.1975. Frame system theory [A], In P. N. Johnson-Laird, P. C. Wason (eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,355-376.
Minsky, M.1977. Frame Theory[C]. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (eds.), Thinking:Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nerlich, B.& Clarke, D. D.2000. Semantic fields and frames:Historical explorations of the interface between language, action, and cognition [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,32:125-150.
Nida, E. A & C. R. Taber.2004. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nuyts, J.2006. Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics [A]. In Geeraert et al. (eds) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,543-558.
Oakley, T.2007. Image schemas[A]. In Geeraerts, D.& Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C],214-235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ostman, J. O.1999. Coherence through Understanding through Discourse Patterns:Focus on News Reports[A]. In Bublitz, W. et al. (eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse:How to Create it and How to Describe it[C],77-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ostman, J. O.2005. Construction Discourse: A Prolegomenon [A]. In Ostman, J. O.& Fried, M. (eds), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [C],121-144. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ostman, J. O.& Fried, M. (eds). Forthcoming. Pragmatics in Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Paltridge, B.1997. Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings [M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Paltridge, B.2001. Genre and the Language Teaching Classroom[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pan, Z.& Kosicki, G. M.1993. Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse [J]. Political Communication, Vol.10:55-75.
Panther, K. U.& Thornburg, L. L.2003. On the Nature of Conceptual Metonymy [A]. In Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. L. (eds.) Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1-20.
Panther, K. U.& Thornburg, L. L..1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30:755-769.
Peirce, C. S.1960. Collected Works of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol.2., Bristol, England, Thoemmes Press.
Piaget, J.1969. The Mechanisms of Perception[M]. London:Routledge & K. Paul.
Pike, K. L.1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Ponterotto, D.2003. The cohesive role cognitive metaphor in discourse and conversation [A]. In: Barcelona, A.(ed). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [c]. Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter,283-298.
Renkema, J.1993. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.& Baicchi, A.2007. Elocutionary Constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization[A]. In Kecskes, I.& L. Horn (eds.) Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rumelhart, D.1975. Notes on a schema for stories[A]. In Bobrow, D.& Collins, A. (eds.), Representation and understanding[C],211-236. New York:Academic Press.
Russell, D. R.1997. Rethinking genre in school & society: An activity theory analysis[J]. Written Communication,14:504-54.
Saeed, J. I.1997. Semantics [M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Samet, J.& Schank, R.1984. Coherence and connectivity [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(1):57-82.
Sanders, J.& Redeker, G.1996. Perspective and the Representation of Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse [A]. In Fauconnier, G.& Sweetser, E. (eds.),290-317.
Sanders, T.& Maat, H. P.2006. Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches [A]. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics[C], Vol.4:591-95. Elsevier.
Sanders, T.& Sanders, J.2006. Text and Text Analysis [A]. In Brown, K. et al. (eds.). Encyclopedia of language and Linguistics [C], Vol.12, (2nd ed.). London:Elsevier,597-607.
Sanders, T.& Spooren, W.2007. Discourse and text structure [A]. In Geeraerts, D.& Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 916-941.
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., Spooren, W.& Noordman, L.1993. Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representations [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:93-133.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W.& Noordman, L.1992. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations [J]. Discourse Processes 15:1-35.
Sandig, B.1996. Sprachliche Perspektivierung und perspektivierende Stile[J]. Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik,102:36-63.
Sanford, A.2005. Coherence: Psycholinguistic Approach [A]. In Brown, K. et al (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics [C]. Vol.4.(2nd ed.). Amsterdam:Elsevier,586-591.
Sanford, A. J.& Garrod, S. C.1981. Understanding Written Language [M]. Chicheter:Wiley.
Sanford, A. J.& Start, P.2002. Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,6 (9):382-386.
Sapir, E.1949. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. New York:Harcourt Brace.
Saussure, F. de.2001. Course in General Linguistics [M]北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Schank, R. C.& Abelson, R. P.1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding:an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures [M]. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, D.1987/2007. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D.1988. Conversation Analysis[A]. In Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics:The Cambridge Survey Ⅳ. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,251-276.
Searle, J. R.1975. Indirect Speech Acts[A]. InCole, P.& J. L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3:Speech Act. New York: Academic Press,59-82.
Searle, J. R.1983. Intentionality[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J.1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation: Describing English language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Smith, N.& Wilson, D.1992. Introduction to Relevance Theory[J]. Lingua,87(1):1-10.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steinhart, E. C.2001. The Logic of Metaphor [M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stern, J.2000. Metaphor in Context [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Stockwell, P.2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction[M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Stubbs, M.1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J.1990. Genre Analysis:English in academic and research setting [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.2004. Research Genres: explorations and applications [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.1996. The windowing of attention in language [A]. In Shibatani, M.& Thompson, S. A. (eds), Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,235-87.
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol.1) [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Tankard, Jr., J. W.2001. The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing. In Reese, S. D., Grandy, O.,& Grant, Jr. A. E. (eds.), Framing Public Life:Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,95-106
Tannen, D.& Wallat, C.1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction:examples from a medial examination interview [A]. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Framing in Discourse [C]. New York /Oxford:Oxford University Press,57-113.
Tannen, D.1984. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse [M]. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tannen, D.1986. Frames Revisited:Frame Semantics Ⅱ[J]. Quaderni di Semantica,7 (1):106-109.
Tannen, D.1993. What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations [A]. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Framing in Discourse [C]. New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press,14-56.
Taylor, J.1989/1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford University Press.
Thagard, P.2000. Coherence in Thought and Action [M]. MIT Press.
Thompson, S. A.& B. A. Fox.2002. Construction in conversation: the case of relative clauses in English[A]. Presentation at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar at Helsinki, September 6-8,2002.
Thorndyke, P. W.1977. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse[A]. Cognitive Psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press,121-152.
Tomlin, R. S., Forrest, L., Pu, M. M.,& Kim, M. H.1997. Discourse semantics[A].In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process [C],63-111. London:Sage.
Turner, M.1996. The Literary Mind [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unger, C.2006. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence: the Pragmatics of Discourse Type[M]. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H. J.2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London:Longman,
van Dijk, T. A.& Kintsch, W.1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension[M]. New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A.1977. Text and Context [M]. London:Longman.
van Dijk, T. A.1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Studies of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition [M]. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Dijk, T. A.1997. Discourse as social interaction[A]. In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction 2[C]. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun A.1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach [M]. London: Sage Publication.
Virtanen, T.1993. Discourse Functions of Adverbial Placement in English[M]. Abo Academic University Press.
Vygotsky, L.1986. Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Warren, B.1999. Aspects of referential metonymy [A]. In Panther, K.U.& Radden, G (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins,121-135.
Werth, P.1999. Text Worlds:Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse [M]. London: Longman.
Whorf, B. L.1956. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writing of Benjamin Lee Whorf [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Widdowson, H. G.1985. Learning Purpose and Language Use[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G 2004. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis[M]. Blackwell Publishing.
Widdowson, H.G 1978. Teaching Language as Communication [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D.1994. Relevance and Understanding[A]. In G. Brown et al. (eds), Language and Understanding[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,37-60.
Wilson, D.1998. Discourse, Coherence, and Relevance: A Reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998 (3).
Winterowd, W. R.1970. The Grammar of Coherence[J]. College English, No.31:828-835.
Wittgenstein, L.1958. Philosophical Investigations [M]. Trans.by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: MacMillan.
Wood, L. A.& Kroger, R. O.2000. Doing Discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text [M].Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi:Sage.
Yu, N.1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese [M].Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company.
Yule, G.1996. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.