文化话语视域中的遗产建构与重构
摘要
在当今中国乃至世界范围内,“遗产热”无疑是最受关注的文化现象之一。然而,正如许多批评家所指出的,遗产并非纯粹的历史,它是当下社会文化语境中人们面向过去的一种表征和建构,其背后是源于西方的现代主义历史观和文化逻辑。不可否认,遗产保护挽救了为数众多的历史文化遗留,但于此同时,它也加速了不能被纳入遗产体系的历史和传统的进一步失落。遗产运动的全球化扩张还导致了不同国家和地区本土历史意识的破坏,人们言说过去、理解过去、利用过去的多元文化智慧进一步被边缘化。今天,中国遗产研究和实践所用的基本语词、概念、范畴都是从国外翻译而来的,是进口的。这些源于他者,并经由世界性权威组织(特别是世界古迹遗址保护协会和联合国教科文组织)而获得可靠性的话语似乎成了理所当然的常识与真理,其倡导的价值体系也变成了毋庸置疑的参照标准。
在这样的背景下,本文试图探索中国本土的遗产书写方式,挖掘具有中国文化特色的遗产话语,推动跨文化对话。中国素有“崇古”、“好古”的传统,有浩瀚如海的历史文献与典籍,从本土历史书写和文化传统中寻找与今天所说的“遗产”相关的语词、言说方式、思维逻辑与价值观念,反思“权威化遗产话语”(Smith2006)的普世性、真理性,探索中国遗产的多元话语重构是摆在我们面前的重大课题。以浙江省衢州市为基地,本研究希望在这些方面做出一些探索和尝试。具体来说,本文主要探讨两个方面的问题：其一是衢州传统方志中“遗产”是如何被书写的,以此为切入口,挖掘本土的语词、言说方式、话语策略及其背后体现的遗产思维和文化价值观,阐释其面向过去的意义生产,并借助其与全球性遗产话语的差异反思当下的问题；其二是在当下的社会文化语境中,衢州遗产的言说与书写实践可以从上述本土传统中获得什么启示,如何利用它们推动遗产(话语)的重构,从而走向多元文化对话。
这样的研究既是批判性的,也是建构性的。本文对遗产话语的关注不仅是要解构全球化、同质化的文化保护逻辑及其背后的历史意识,更是要让边缘的、被遗忘的本土智慧和声音发出来,让西方权威以外的文化他者得以理解,推动遗产认知与实践的多元化发展。从这个意义上说,本文呈现的是一项具有跨文化意义的研究。与此同时,本文的研究也具有跨学科、超学科的特质,它不仅整合了源于不同学科的概念、理论、方法和研究发现,还试图推动其所涉领域(特别是话语学与遗产学)的实质革新与发展。
本文主要分为五个部分,加上导论和结语,一共七章。在第一章导论中,笔者首先关注的是中国“遗产热”背后的遗产政治问题,特别是“权威化遗产话语”对中国遗产思维和实践方式的操控以及由此带来的文化影响。接着,笔者期望走向地方,寻找不同于主流遗产观念的文化话语和他者思维。以浙江衢州为中心,笔者提出了本文研究的目标和要解决的问题。最后,笔者对本研究的学术指向做了简单交代,点明了希望建立学术对话的相关领域,主要包括话语学、遗产学、地方研究(特别是历史书写中的地方建构)、跨文化研究,讨论了研究的意义和可能做出的贡献。
第二章对相关文献进行梳理,以此搭建研究的理论框架。简言之,本研究的基本理论前提是：遗产是一种话语实践,遗产存在于话语之中,从话语中获得意义。基于此,遗产话语的文化(多元)性以及话语视角下的遗产重构也被纳入到研究的理论视野。笔者首先对话语这一概念进行了梳理,说明了其在本文中的用法,继而对将遗产视为表征、社会建构和话语(实践)的研究文献做了回顾,其中话语分析的引入,从语言运作上展示遗产的社会性和政治性,是一大亮点。随后,笔者借助文化话语研究(包括“话语的文化视角”、“文化话语分析”和“边缘话语分析”)的相关理论探讨了遗产话语的文化性与多元性,指出了研究非西方、边缘化文化话语的重要性和紧迫性。既然遗产是一种话语建构,针对普世主义的遗产文化重构也需要放到话语层面来思考。因此,本章最后讨论以话语重构为基础的当下遗产重构,认为遗产话语的本土化、多元化转型是实现中国遗产重构和世界遗产多样性的重要途径。
第三章以衢州为中心展开,介绍研究的基地、文本资料与方法论。笔者从其进入衢州的田野研究经历入手,说明了本文与“衢州水亭门街区文化遗产与记忆研究”项目的源流关系。概括来说,本文的研究以笔者在该项目中的田野参与和文本分析工作为基础,加之相应的范围拓展而得以成形。接着,笔者对衢州(包括其历史和当下的历史文化保护诉求)以及水亭门街区做了简单介绍,从话语的视角出发,衢州(包括水亭门街区)以及衢州的遗产都可以被视为文本,或者说一系列文本建构起来的地方。也就是说,我们可以从有关衢州(遗产)的文本中思考相关遗产的本土话语建构。这些文本正是本研究所依赖的主要材料,衢州的传统方志,包括四部《衢州府志》(即明弘治、嘉靖、天启和清康熙《衢州府志》)和三部县志(即清康熙、嘉庆《西安县志》和民国《衢县志》)是其核心。此外,其它一些衢州地方史料与文献,衢州地方百姓的记忆与言说也是思考衢州遗产和地方意义建构的文本来源。最后,笔者对本文的研究方法与方法论进行了阐述。话语分析与民族志的结合是本研究所采用的基本方法论架构,但它并不是源于西方的话语分析与民族志方法的简单相加,在批判性地借用两种研究方法的基本策略的同时,加入相应的跨文化思考,构成了笔者所谓的“文化历史话语分析”和“多元话语民族志”。“文化历史话语分析”模糊了话语研究领域“批评”(critical)与“积极”(positive)的二元对立,历史被视为话语和文本实践,而非阐释话语意义的背景知识与信息,因而历史文本成为其分析的主要对象,对历史话语的文化阐释则构成面向当下的反思。在分析方法上,笔者的思路是以话语分析的基本提问方式为切入口,寻找所收集文本最凸显的特征展开分析,文本的阐释不仅有西方理论(主要是哲学的)的参与,更重要的是,要构成与儒家经典的对话。“多元话语民族志”将民族志视为批评话语研究的一种另类实践,田野调查旨在收集不同话语的文本碎片,民族志写作是实验性的,旨在建构面向某一问题(本研究中是遗产问题)的多元话语共存与对话。从根本上说,这是反思单一化、普世化话语控制,寻求多元文化对话的话语重构过程。
本文研究的核心部分在第四、第五和第六章中呈现。第四章讨论的是传统方志中的“古迹”话语,将其视为当代主流遗产话语的文化他者,展现其面向过去的意义建构方式。首先,笔者从较宏观的角度讨论了“古迹”的古今意义差异,重点从《说文解字》和古迹志小序中解读其本土意义和价值思考。对衢州古迹书写的话语分析是本章的主体,主要从四个方面展开。一是古迹的范畴分析,作为一个概念范畴,古迹可以归属于哪一更高的范畴?哪些范畴与其并列?又有哪些次范畴归附于它?通过对这些问题的考察,衢州方志中古迹边界的模糊性、流动性和可协商性被凸现出来。那么一石一木又何以成为古迹?古迹话语分析的第二个方面围绕这一问题展开,这是范畴分析的进一步深入。从衢州方志古迹卷中石与木的记载中,笔者挖掘出其面向历史人物的纪念意义与道德诉求。从根本上说,古迹之义不在物,而在人。古迹话语分析的第三个方面关注的是其对物质性的思考方式。今天遗产专家特别强调的物质肌理和原真性并不是传统古迹书写关注的重点所在,其原本的物质结构及其它相关信息往往是不被记录的。当然,也有例外的情况,这需要回到中国礼文化的视角去阐释,在传统文化语境中,官署祠庙等各类建筑的物质架构体现了礼制思维与政治的互动。对遗址的记忆,确切地说,对古迹原本所在位置的记忆构成了古迹话语分析的第四个方面。分析发现,无论是否消失,是否可考,古迹原本位置的记载总是特别慎重,即使时而不大具体、确切,古人寻找和考证遗址的痕迹的努力却是清晰可辨的,遗址无法确定时,则是“疑以传疑”。本章最后以一个案例分析作结,重申了以上的主要分析发现,并重点强调了古迹作为人文遗留的意义及其面向当下的道德关怀。
第五章探讨今天所说的“遗产”在衢州传统方志中的言说方式及其背后的意义协商和价值思考,重点考察衢州“遗产”书写中的三大显著语言特征,即互文性、诗与注的运用。互文性通过转引前人的语言或者建立“互文指涉”将人引向前人的语言来记载“遗产”,这样,“遗产”表述就有能跳出当下语言的控制,促成巴赫金式的对话性。互文性体现了本土历史言说的一个基本原则——“语有所本”,它与孔子“述而不作、信而好古”的历史(话语)观一脉相承。诗是衢州传统方志中“遗产”互文性言说中最为常见的体裁,记载古迹,前人留下的诗文常常会被提及或者直接抄录下来。诗与史并不是对立的,通过前人的诗来言说“遗产”,表征性语言的禁锢得以打破,“遗产”的存在可以向后人更好地敞开。与此同时,在诗的言说中,“遗产”作为历史语言存在,以引导世人怀念有德行的先贤,施展“诗教”。注也是衢州方志“遗产”记载中的常见书写方式,体现了中国人立足当下思考过去的话语智慧。通过注释,当下的语言和声音得以进入,与过去的语言和声音并存,形成对话。这与当代遗产书写以当下语言替代历史语言的做法形成鲜明的对照。借助注释理解“遗产”,人们不仅可以看到更多的历史文本碎片,还可能了解到新近的变迁与记载者面向当下的思考,从“古今之变”中领悟“遗产”的意义和价值。最后笔者将这三种“遗产”言说方式放到儒家话语伦理的视角审视,指出正是这种尊古卑己的话语传统让“遗产”具有了面向当下,启迪未来的深层含义。
第六章以衢州水亭门街区的文昌殿为个案,探讨遗产话语的当代重构。文昌殿是一处找不到物质遗存的古迹,但与之相关的文化记忆和历史记载还在,从传统的古迹观出发,它应该理解为需要铭记的“文化遗产”。具体而言,本章探讨的是《衢州水亭门街区文化遗产研究报告》中“醒世之叹文昌殿”一文的多元话语民族志书写,通过对该文的分节解析,笔者阐述了如何以传统“遗产”话语及其言说方式为鉴,将不同的文本和声音纳入遗产的当下重述,促进多元话语对话。在该文的引言部分,不同历史时期、不同来源的文本碎片被并列重置,构成了面向文昌殿的多元意义建构。“文昌殿的历史变迁”是该文第二节关注的重心,在本土古迹思维关照下,整体关联、重建、当下意义等方面的文化思考被凸显出来,发起与全球化遗产思维的对话。该文的最后两节聚焦文昌的祭祀意义与文昌殿的祭祀方式,祭是礼的核心,礼是中国文化的核心,它是文昌殿本土意义生成的重要来源。通过编织与祭祀意义和祭祀活动相关的文本碎片,阐释背后的深层含义,文昌殿遗产的多元话语重构渗入了中国核心文化肌理的观照,添加了最浓墨重彩的一笔。本章最后以遗产的多元话语建构作结,并讨论了这个话语重构方式与孔子话语智慧的关联。
最后一章结语中,本文研究的主要工作和发现在适当之处给出了总结,更重要的是,笔者将所涉及的几个核心议题置于哲学视域中加以检讨,以期引发更进一步的的反思与探索。第一个议题是语词、话语与遗产存在的关系。我们知道,词与物的关系是语言哲学中的一个核心问题,从话语视角审视遗产,自然也需要从这一层面思考遗产的存在方式。借助《道德经》和《圣经》中有关语言与世界的陈述,笔者反思了同质化的人类语言建构的遗产,并进一步讨论了研究边缘化遗产言说与遗产存在的重要意义。第二个议题是遗产的利用。以尼采对历史滥用的反思为起点,笔者探讨了我们为何需要遗产,或者说,作为语言的遗产何以有用。回顾儒家的历史话语伦理,笔者重申了遗产语言建构的伦理向度。第三个议题又回到语言,这一次的回归是更为彻底的自我反思。从庄子“得意忘言”的论述出发,笔者将自己的写作和语言制造也纳入到反思的视域之中。借鉴海德格尔的相关讨论,笔者指出,对语言和自我的遗忘,恰恰是为了让自我言说的对象得到更丰富的生命,让生活世界的多元意义得以澄明地敞开。
This dissertation is a study of the writing of heritage, or the making and remaking of heritage through textual production. Confronting the universalized discourse and its cultural politics in contemporary heritage movement, it aims to explore cultural, alternative constructions of what we today call "heritage" in local-historical settings and possible ways to transform homogeneous representation of the past towards multi-discursive dialogue. More specifically, based itself in the city of Quzhou (衢州), Zhejiang, Eastern China, the project delineates the ways how "heritage" was documented in the pre-modern local gazetteers and how we may renarrate and reconstruct heritage with insights from there. These are achieved through three steps. First, adopting a cultural-historical approach to discourse analysis, it examines the writing of guji (古迹) in the pre-modern local gazetteers of Quzhou. It shows how such a Chinese concept was understood as a cultural Other to contemporary heritage discourse in respects of categorization, materiality and site. Second, it turns to analyze the local gazetteer writing of Quzhou "heritage" through intertextuality, poetry and annotation, unraveling the meaning-making process of the past in the present in the light of Confucian discourse ethics. Third, using a lost guji, the Wenchang Palace in Quzhou as case study, it explicates how authentic texts, local understandings and the fundamental Chinese cultural fabric Li (礼) are creatively remobilized to compose a multi-discursive ethnography of heritage. Through this renarrating towards multi-discursivity, the Wenchang Palace is re-understood and remade as local heritage.
The study is simultaneously a critical and a constructive project. It challenges the universality and truthfulness of Western-originated, expert-disciplined heritage and urges us to rethink how contemporary Chinese heritage is defined, identified, represented, valued and managed. This is, however, attained by turning our attention to alternative expressions and ways of speaking "heritage" in the local-historical contexts of Quzhou and meaningfully interpreting the underlying cultural logic, mode of thinking and sense of historicity. More importantly, it also shows how we may creatively use these cultural ways of writing and thinking of the past to rewrite and whereby remake local heritage in the present.
在这样的背景下,本文试图探索中国本土的遗产书写方式,挖掘具有中国文化特色的遗产话语,推动跨文化对话。中国素有“崇古”、“好古”的传统,有浩瀚如海的历史文献与典籍,从本土历史书写和文化传统中寻找与今天所说的“遗产”相关的语词、言说方式、思维逻辑与价值观念,反思“权威化遗产话语”(Smith2006)的普世性、真理性,探索中国遗产的多元话语重构是摆在我们面前的重大课题。以浙江省衢州市为基地,本研究希望在这些方面做出一些探索和尝试。具体来说,本文主要探讨两个方面的问题：其一是衢州传统方志中“遗产”是如何被书写的,以此为切入口,挖掘本土的语词、言说方式、话语策略及其背后体现的遗产思维和文化价值观,阐释其面向过去的意义生产,并借助其与全球性遗产话语的差异反思当下的问题；其二是在当下的社会文化语境中,衢州遗产的言说与书写实践可以从上述本土传统中获得什么启示,如何利用它们推动遗产(话语)的重构,从而走向多元文化对话。
这样的研究既是批判性的,也是建构性的。本文对遗产话语的关注不仅是要解构全球化、同质化的文化保护逻辑及其背后的历史意识,更是要让边缘的、被遗忘的本土智慧和声音发出来,让西方权威以外的文化他者得以理解,推动遗产认知与实践的多元化发展。从这个意义上说,本文呈现的是一项具有跨文化意义的研究。与此同时,本文的研究也具有跨学科、超学科的特质,它不仅整合了源于不同学科的概念、理论、方法和研究发现,还试图推动其所涉领域(特别是话语学与遗产学)的实质革新与发展。
本文主要分为五个部分,加上导论和结语,一共七章。在第一章导论中,笔者首先关注的是中国“遗产热”背后的遗产政治问题,特别是“权威化遗产话语”对中国遗产思维和实践方式的操控以及由此带来的文化影响。接着,笔者期望走向地方,寻找不同于主流遗产观念的文化话语和他者思维。以浙江衢州为中心,笔者提出了本文研究的目标和要解决的问题。最后,笔者对本研究的学术指向做了简单交代,点明了希望建立学术对话的相关领域,主要包括话语学、遗产学、地方研究(特别是历史书写中的地方建构)、跨文化研究,讨论了研究的意义和可能做出的贡献。
第二章对相关文献进行梳理,以此搭建研究的理论框架。简言之,本研究的基本理论前提是：遗产是一种话语实践,遗产存在于话语之中,从话语中获得意义。基于此,遗产话语的文化(多元)性以及话语视角下的遗产重构也被纳入到研究的理论视野。笔者首先对话语这一概念进行了梳理,说明了其在本文中的用法,继而对将遗产视为表征、社会建构和话语(实践)的研究文献做了回顾,其中话语分析的引入,从语言运作上展示遗产的社会性和政治性,是一大亮点。随后,笔者借助文化话语研究(包括“话语的文化视角”、“文化话语分析”和“边缘话语分析”)的相关理论探讨了遗产话语的文化性与多元性,指出了研究非西方、边缘化文化话语的重要性和紧迫性。既然遗产是一种话语建构,针对普世主义的遗产文化重构也需要放到话语层面来思考。因此,本章最后讨论以话语重构为基础的当下遗产重构,认为遗产话语的本土化、多元化转型是实现中国遗产重构和世界遗产多样性的重要途径。
第三章以衢州为中心展开,介绍研究的基地、文本资料与方法论。笔者从其进入衢州的田野研究经历入手,说明了本文与“衢州水亭门街区文化遗产与记忆研究”项目的源流关系。概括来说,本文的研究以笔者在该项目中的田野参与和文本分析工作为基础,加之相应的范围拓展而得以成形。接着,笔者对衢州(包括其历史和当下的历史文化保护诉求)以及水亭门街区做了简单介绍,从话语的视角出发,衢州(包括水亭门街区)以及衢州的遗产都可以被视为文本,或者说一系列文本建构起来的地方。也就是说,我们可以从有关衢州(遗产)的文本中思考相关遗产的本土话语建构。这些文本正是本研究所依赖的主要材料,衢州的传统方志,包括四部《衢州府志》(即明弘治、嘉靖、天启和清康熙《衢州府志》)和三部县志(即清康熙、嘉庆《西安县志》和民国《衢县志》)是其核心。此外,其它一些衢州地方史料与文献,衢州地方百姓的记忆与言说也是思考衢州遗产和地方意义建构的文本来源。最后,笔者对本文的研究方法与方法论进行了阐述。话语分析与民族志的结合是本研究所采用的基本方法论架构,但它并不是源于西方的话语分析与民族志方法的简单相加,在批判性地借用两种研究方法的基本策略的同时,加入相应的跨文化思考,构成了笔者所谓的“文化历史话语分析”和“多元话语民族志”。“文化历史话语分析”模糊了话语研究领域“批评”(critical)与“积极”(positive)的二元对立,历史被视为话语和文本实践,而非阐释话语意义的背景知识与信息,因而历史文本成为其分析的主要对象,对历史话语的文化阐释则构成面向当下的反思。在分析方法上,笔者的思路是以话语分析的基本提问方式为切入口,寻找所收集文本最凸显的特征展开分析,文本的阐释不仅有西方理论(主要是哲学的)的参与,更重要的是,要构成与儒家经典的对话。“多元话语民族志”将民族志视为批评话语研究的一种另类实践,田野调查旨在收集不同话语的文本碎片,民族志写作是实验性的,旨在建构面向某一问题(本研究中是遗产问题)的多元话语共存与对话。从根本上说,这是反思单一化、普世化话语控制,寻求多元文化对话的话语重构过程。
本文研究的核心部分在第四、第五和第六章中呈现。第四章讨论的是传统方志中的“古迹”话语,将其视为当代主流遗产话语的文化他者,展现其面向过去的意义建构方式。首先,笔者从较宏观的角度讨论了“古迹”的古今意义差异,重点从《说文解字》和古迹志小序中解读其本土意义和价值思考。对衢州古迹书写的话语分析是本章的主体,主要从四个方面展开。一是古迹的范畴分析,作为一个概念范畴,古迹可以归属于哪一更高的范畴?哪些范畴与其并列?又有哪些次范畴归附于它?通过对这些问题的考察,衢州方志中古迹边界的模糊性、流动性和可协商性被凸现出来。那么一石一木又何以成为古迹?古迹话语分析的第二个方面围绕这一问题展开,这是范畴分析的进一步深入。从衢州方志古迹卷中石与木的记载中,笔者挖掘出其面向历史人物的纪念意义与道德诉求。从根本上说,古迹之义不在物,而在人。古迹话语分析的第三个方面关注的是其对物质性的思考方式。今天遗产专家特别强调的物质肌理和原真性并不是传统古迹书写关注的重点所在,其原本的物质结构及其它相关信息往往是不被记录的。当然,也有例外的情况,这需要回到中国礼文化的视角去阐释,在传统文化语境中,官署祠庙等各类建筑的物质架构体现了礼制思维与政治的互动。对遗址的记忆,确切地说,对古迹原本所在位置的记忆构成了古迹话语分析的第四个方面。分析发现,无论是否消失,是否可考,古迹原本位置的记载总是特别慎重,即使时而不大具体、确切,古人寻找和考证遗址的痕迹的努力却是清晰可辨的,遗址无法确定时,则是“疑以传疑”。本章最后以一个案例分析作结,重申了以上的主要分析发现,并重点强调了古迹作为人文遗留的意义及其面向当下的道德关怀。
第五章探讨今天所说的“遗产”在衢州传统方志中的言说方式及其背后的意义协商和价值思考,重点考察衢州“遗产”书写中的三大显著语言特征,即互文性、诗与注的运用。互文性通过转引前人的语言或者建立“互文指涉”将人引向前人的语言来记载“遗产”,这样,“遗产”表述就有能跳出当下语言的控制,促成巴赫金式的对话性。互文性体现了本土历史言说的一个基本原则——“语有所本”,它与孔子“述而不作、信而好古”的历史(话语)观一脉相承。诗是衢州传统方志中“遗产”互文性言说中最为常见的体裁,记载古迹,前人留下的诗文常常会被提及或者直接抄录下来。诗与史并不是对立的,通过前人的诗来言说“遗产”,表征性语言的禁锢得以打破,“遗产”的存在可以向后人更好地敞开。与此同时,在诗的言说中,“遗产”作为历史语言存在,以引导世人怀念有德行的先贤,施展“诗教”。注也是衢州方志“遗产”记载中的常见书写方式,体现了中国人立足当下思考过去的话语智慧。通过注释,当下的语言和声音得以进入,与过去的语言和声音并存,形成对话。这与当代遗产书写以当下语言替代历史语言的做法形成鲜明的对照。借助注释理解“遗产”,人们不仅可以看到更多的历史文本碎片,还可能了解到新近的变迁与记载者面向当下的思考,从“古今之变”中领悟“遗产”的意义和价值。最后笔者将这三种“遗产”言说方式放到儒家话语伦理的视角审视,指出正是这种尊古卑己的话语传统让“遗产”具有了面向当下,启迪未来的深层含义。
第六章以衢州水亭门街区的文昌殿为个案,探讨遗产话语的当代重构。文昌殿是一处找不到物质遗存的古迹,但与之相关的文化记忆和历史记载还在,从传统的古迹观出发,它应该理解为需要铭记的“文化遗产”。具体而言,本章探讨的是《衢州水亭门街区文化遗产研究报告》中“醒世之叹文昌殿”一文的多元话语民族志书写,通过对该文的分节解析,笔者阐述了如何以传统“遗产”话语及其言说方式为鉴,将不同的文本和声音纳入遗产的当下重述,促进多元话语对话。在该文的引言部分,不同历史时期、不同来源的文本碎片被并列重置,构成了面向文昌殿的多元意义建构。“文昌殿的历史变迁”是该文第二节关注的重心,在本土古迹思维关照下,整体关联、重建、当下意义等方面的文化思考被凸显出来,发起与全球化遗产思维的对话。该文的最后两节聚焦文昌的祭祀意义与文昌殿的祭祀方式,祭是礼的核心,礼是中国文化的核心,它是文昌殿本土意义生成的重要来源。通过编织与祭祀意义和祭祀活动相关的文本碎片,阐释背后的深层含义,文昌殿遗产的多元话语重构渗入了中国核心文化肌理的观照,添加了最浓墨重彩的一笔。本章最后以遗产的多元话语建构作结,并讨论了这个话语重构方式与孔子话语智慧的关联。
最后一章结语中,本文研究的主要工作和发现在适当之处给出了总结,更重要的是,笔者将所涉及的几个核心议题置于哲学视域中加以检讨,以期引发更进一步的的反思与探索。第一个议题是语词、话语与遗产存在的关系。我们知道,词与物的关系是语言哲学中的一个核心问题,从话语视角审视遗产,自然也需要从这一层面思考遗产的存在方式。借助《道德经》和《圣经》中有关语言与世界的陈述,笔者反思了同质化的人类语言建构的遗产,并进一步讨论了研究边缘化遗产言说与遗产存在的重要意义。第二个议题是遗产的利用。以尼采对历史滥用的反思为起点,笔者探讨了我们为何需要遗产,或者说,作为语言的遗产何以有用。回顾儒家的历史话语伦理,笔者重申了遗产语言建构的伦理向度。第三个议题又回到语言,这一次的回归是更为彻底的自我反思。从庄子“得意忘言”的论述出发,笔者将自己的写作和语言制造也纳入到反思的视域之中。借鉴海德格尔的相关讨论,笔者指出,对语言和自我的遗忘,恰恰是为了让自我言说的对象得到更丰富的生命,让生活世界的多元意义得以澄明地敞开。
This dissertation is a study of the writing of heritage, or the making and remaking of heritage through textual production. Confronting the universalized discourse and its cultural politics in contemporary heritage movement, it aims to explore cultural, alternative constructions of what we today call "heritage" in local-historical settings and possible ways to transform homogeneous representation of the past towards multi-discursive dialogue. More specifically, based itself in the city of Quzhou (衢州), Zhejiang, Eastern China, the project delineates the ways how "heritage" was documented in the pre-modern local gazetteers and how we may renarrate and reconstruct heritage with insights from there. These are achieved through three steps. First, adopting a cultural-historical approach to discourse analysis, it examines the writing of guji (古迹) in the pre-modern local gazetteers of Quzhou. It shows how such a Chinese concept was understood as a cultural Other to contemporary heritage discourse in respects of categorization, materiality and site. Second, it turns to analyze the local gazetteer writing of Quzhou "heritage" through intertextuality, poetry and annotation, unraveling the meaning-making process of the past in the present in the light of Confucian discourse ethics. Third, using a lost guji, the Wenchang Palace in Quzhou as case study, it explicates how authentic texts, local understandings and the fundamental Chinese cultural fabric Li (礼) are creatively remobilized to compose a multi-discursive ethnography of heritage. Through this renarrating towards multi-discursivity, the Wenchang Palace is re-understood and remade as local heritage.
The study is simultaneously a critical and a constructive project. It challenges the universality and truthfulness of Western-originated, expert-disciplined heritage and urges us to rethink how contemporary Chinese heritage is defined, identified, represented, valued and managed. This is, however, attained by turning our attention to alternative expressions and ways of speaking "heritage" in the local-historical contexts of Quzhou and meaningfully interpreting the underlying cultural logic, mode of thinking and sense of historicity. More importantly, it also shows how we may creatively use these cultural ways of writing and thinking of the past to rewrite and whereby remake local heritage in the present.
引文
1 See the introduction to China as one of the state parties at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre's website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/CN/.
2 See "China-Intangible Cultural Heritage" at the UNESCO Intangible Heritage Website: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00311&cp=CN.
3 It is reported that 70,000 items are nominated in the Chinese intangible heritage listing system, which includes national, provincial, municipal and county-level lists. See Intangible Cultural Heritage in China(中国的非物质文化遗产)at http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-09/27/content1169344.htm. As for tangible heritage, China has an enlisting system for conservation called wenwu baohu danwei (文物保护单位),which is used to be translated as "unit of cultural relics" and now more often rendered as "unit of cultural heritage". There are virtually uncountable national, provincial and municipal key units of cultural heritage in this system.
4 The interview was conducted in English by Hou Song and Xie Jieyi in Hangzhou on Nov. 6, 2013 and was transcribed by Xie Jieyi. I am very grateful to Xie for sending me the transcription of the interview.
5 By this, I am referring to not only those who label themselves critical discourse analysts, but also other discourse scholars whose research has a critical orientation to social and cultural issues. Excluded are discourse analysts and text linguists who do not consider social, cultural problems in real life the orientation of their research.
6 Sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) of the UK, it is officially the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. See the entry "English Heritage" in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Heritage) for an introduction and its official website (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/) for more.
7 Zhongguoshi Xulun(中国史叙论On Chinese Historiography) was first published in September, 1901 in the Qingyibao(清议报)and Xin Shixue (新史学New Historiography) was first published in February, 1902 in the Xinmin Congbao (新民丛报).
8 Zhu passed away in 2011.
9 By "old Quzhou urbanity", I refer to the urban area of the old Quzhou enclosed by the ancient city walls.
10 In the remainder of this dissertation, the translations from Chinese sources are all mine if not otherwise pointed out.
11 The way in marking authorship for pre-modern Chinese local gazetteers was unique. The commissioner of the local gazetteer compiling, always the chief governor of the locale (county, prefecture, province), was put at the first. His contribution in commissioning and sponsoring the compiling practice is called'‘修”(xiu)in Chinese. Then the chief compiler (and his major co-workers) was named. Their contribution was called“纂”(zuan) in Chinese. This traditional order of marking authorship is followed when I list these prefectural gazetteers and the county gazetteers later.
12 The simplified reference to each of these gazetteers follows Zheng Yongxi's way of referring to them. And for the one compiled by him, I will call Zheng's gazetteer.
13 Mingsheng guji (名胜古迹) is usually understood as a compounding of mingsheng and guji. In Li Chunxia's article, she also explicates the word this way.
14 See, for example, Xinhua Dictionary Online http://xh.5156edu.com/html5/230525.html and Handian(汉典)http://www.zdic.net/cd/ci/5/ZdicE5Zdic8FZdicA479483.htm.
15 Wenwu Baohu Danwei(文物保护单位) refers to the immovable cultural heritages in mainland China. It is a main part of Chinese heritage preservation system. For more about this, see王运良.《中国文物保护单位制度研究》,复旦大学博士学位论文,2009.
16 http://baike.baidu.com/view/112408.htm.
17 (汉)许慎撰,(清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社,1981,p.88.
18 Ibid. After the English translation I reproduce the original text so that readers with knowledge of classical language can have not only a better view of my analytical process, but also wider space to interpret the text themselves. This format will be followed throught the whole dissertation. Moreover, most of the orginial Chinese text I quote does not have punctuations. In this one and others in the remainder of this dissertation, punctuations are all mine, if the source text listed in the References is not marked as punctuated version(标点本)or names of those who have done the punctuation.
19 "zi gu zai xi" is a phrase from a poem entitled Na (那) in the Book of Poetry.
20 (汉)许慎撰、(清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社,1981,p.88.
21 Ibid, p.7O. The distinction between bigger-and smaller-size characters is maintained as appeared in the source text. The bigger-size characters are the original text in Shuowen Jiezi, and the smaller-size characters are Duan Yucai's commentaries. In my English translation, this distinction is followed. In the remainder of the dissertation, the distinctions in word size in the citations and my English translation all resemble how they appear in the Chinese original.
22 See dao in Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/582901/dao.
23 (清)郝玉麟等监修,(清)鲁曾煜等编纂.《广东通志》,文渊阁四库全书本,卷五十三.
24 (清)田文镜、王士俊等监修,(清)孙灏、顾栋高等编纂.《河南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本,卷五十一The translation of the quotation from the Book of Poetry is copied from James Legge (see Legge 1876: 264).
25 (清)赵弘恩监修, (清)黄之隽编纂.《江南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本,卷二十九.
26 Ibid.
27 (汉)许慎撰,(清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》上海：上海古籍出版社,1981,p.408.
28 (清)张玉书等编纂.《康熙字典》(标点整理本)上海：汉语大词典出版社,2002, p.1112. The translation of the quotation from the I Ching is Legge's version.
29 (汉)许慎撰, (清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社,1981年,p.205.
30 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷首.
31 A biography of Zhou Zhao is seen in the volume of Rulin(儒林Confucian scholars) in the gazetteer (see姚宝煌等1970：1295-1296).
32 The book is divided into five parts: Tian (Heaven), Di (Earth), Ren (Humans), Wu (Objects), Shi (Events) and thus entitled A Collection on Five Issues.
33 Sanqu is another way to call Quzhou.
34 I will explicate the use of annotation in the next chapter.
35 (清)嵇曾筠监修,沈翼机编纂.《浙江通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
36 In Yao's gazetteer, it is called the Five-branch Camphor (五枝樟),and in Zheng's gazetteer it is called the Five-finger Camphor(五指樟).
37 Mu(亩)is a Chinese measurement of area. 1 mu is about 0.0667 hectares.
38 Penghou(彭侯)refers to the spirit in the tree. It has human's face and dog's body. It can be eaten. See李剑国.《新辑搜神记》,北京：中华书局,2007,p.267.
39 The Mount Emei is in Sichuan, Southwestern China. It is one of the most famous mountains in China. The idea that this mountain suppressed the seat of the prefectural government might be a consideration on the perspective of Fengshui.
40 Zhang (丈) is a Chinese measurement. 1 zhang is about 3.33 meters. 口 is used to refer to a character unrecognizable at the place in the original. One may guess that the word is 许 or 余. Not knowing that character exactly, I suppose it is safe to translate "丈口" into several meters.
41 Although intangible heritage is a concept Eastern countries initialize to confront Western definition of world heritage that prioritizes physically-tangible remains of the past, it does not totally remove the consideration of materiality and is still caught by the AHD (see for example, Smith 2006; Waterton 2010a).
42 Zhengmeng (征梦) means that the dream is later verified in real life.
43 For example, in Shen's and Zhao's gazetteers, the entry of the Zhengmeng Pavilion, what is seen is also the said story, but with a few more details(沈杰等2009：40；杨准等2009：161)；in Yao's and Zheng's gazetteers, that story and a couple of poems related constitute the entry of the Zhengmeng Pavilion consists(姚宝煃等1970：544-545；郑永禧1984：762).
44 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷三.
45 Li(里)is a Chinese measurement of distance, 1 li equals to 500 meters.
46 See Appendix 1
47 The Li classics include the Zhouli (Rites of Zhou), the Yili (Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial) and the Liji (Book of Rites). Together they are called "Sanli" (Three Rites). They are the most ancient texts that document Li. And in the Chinese history there are numerous books studying and making interpretations of them.
48 (清)盛世佐.《仪礼集编》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本,卷六.
49 (清)江永.《仪礼释宫增注》文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
50 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷三.
51 Ibid.
52 Zhuangyuan (状元)was the title for the one who won the first place in the final highest level of the imperial exams.
53 Here my attention is on discourse representation. I will come to the intertextual register later.
54 An official whose responsibility is compiling history.
55 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂：《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷三.
56 (宋)苏洵著,曾枣荘、金成礼笺注.《嘉佑集笺注》.上海：上海古籍出版社,1993年,p.232.
57 The deputy head of the legislative bureau of government.
58 These two volumes collect prose written about different places in Quzhou. Most of the prose are inscriptional records.
59 Wei Su(危素1303-1372)(?)was a scholar-official in the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties. He was also a famous calligrapher. Huang Jinhua(黄金华)is another way to call Huang Jin (黄溍1277-1357).
60 An official position first set up in the Tang dynasty. During the Song dynasty, it became a position without much real power.
61 An official equals to the deputy prefecture during the Song dynasty.
62 See http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1334.
63 Fei Ge Liu Dan means a flying-like penthouse with beautiful red colors floating.
64 (清)嵇曾筠监修,沈翼机编纂.《浙江通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书,卷二百二十.
65 Quzhou and Jinhua were all in the territory of the Dongyang prefecture at that time.
66 (汉)毛亨传, (汉)郑玄笺, (唐)孔颖达疏.《毛诗正义》(十三经注疏,标点本),北京：北京大学出版社,1999年,p.10.
67 The Chaojing Gate was another name for the Shutting Gate.
68 Nianer refers to the Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty, Xiao Yan(萧衍464-549)This is his childhood name.
69 A stupa is a mound-like or semi-hemispherical structure containing Buddhist relics, typically the ashes of Buddhist monks, used by Buddhists as a place of meditation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupa).
70 The Min Rebellion (闽变)refers to the war Geng Jingzhong (耿精忠) launched against the Qing government from 1673 to 1676. He started from Fuzhou, Fujian and soon controlled the whole province. He then moved his troops to attack Zhejiang.
71 Siduo is the official in charge of cultural and educational affairs.
72 The Kui Star, or Kuixing refers to the four stars in the bowl of the big dipper, or the one at the tip of the bowl.
73 Keming means the scholarly honors won in the imperial exams (keju). It was of three levels. They were shengyuan(生员) or xiucai (秀才),juren (举人),and jinshi (进士)in order. To win the highest level jinshi was almost a guarantee of an official position, usually the magistrate of a county. The imperial exam system was initiated during the Sui dynasty (581-618) and abolished in 1905.
74 See Appendix 2
75 Literation (解放)refers to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949.
76 Zhou Mingxia (周明霞)was a well-known high school teacher in Quzhou. She was sister of Zhou Mingji(周明基1929-),a diplomat who had been in charge of Afican affair for many years.
77 According to my fieldwork experience, Quzhou people call both Buddhism gods and Daoism and popular religion deities Laofo(老佛)or Pusha (菩萨)These two terms are literally translated as Buddha.
78 See "No. 38, the Xiaying Street at the feet of the city wall" (城墙根的下营街三十八号)athttp://ranranju.blog.163.com/blog/static/51303222007268942185/.
79 The Dacheng Palace (Dacheng Dian) refers to the main hall of the Confucian Temple. At that time the Confucian Temple in Quzhou serves as the County School (Xian Xue).
80 For example, the West Lake Cultural Landscape in Hangzhou embodies a multitude of heritages and these heritages are interconnected, making the West Lake area a unique cultural landscape.
81 See Text of Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, Article 2-Definitions. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=enandpg=00006.
82 Actually Qu Yuan's Jiuge consists of eleven songs. The fifth one is entitled "The Great Siming" and the sixth is "The Junior Siming".
83 In the rite ofyouliao, animal oblation is placed on the firewood and burnt; the light from it is believed to reach to the sky.
84 The Chinese version of this quotation is "大宗伯之职……以槱燎祀司中、司命、风师、雨师”
85 Zitong(梓潼)and Wenchang used to be two deities, but during the Yuan dynasty, they united as one. Zitong was also a county name in Sichuan. The first temple of the Zitong deity was at the Qiqu Mountain in that county.
86 The state sacrifice system in imperial China usually had three levels:dasi (great sacrifice), zhongsi (middle sacrifice) and qunsi (common sacrifice).
87 Guansheng (the Saint Guan), also referred as Guangong (Sir Guan, or the Duke Guan), Guandi (the Emperor Guan) is worshipped as a deity of martial arts or the God of War in China. He was originally a renowned general of Shu (蜀)in the age of Three Kingdoms named Guan Yu (关羽162-220)For more, see Prasenjit, D. (1988). Superscribing symbols:The myth of Guandi, Chinese God of War, The Journal of Asian Studies,47(4):778-795.
88 Wen dance is one form of dances performed with the court music. It is used when the emperor offers sacrifice to the heaven and the earth and his ancestral. Eight-row wen dance is wen dance that has eight rows of dancers to perform it. According to the rites of the Zhou dynasty, only the emperor can have this kind of dance.
89 http://www.lantian.org.tw/top/03/1.htm
90 The punctuation is by Yang Bojun, See杨伯峻.《论语译注》,北京：中华书局,1983,p.139.
91 See, for example,陈绍灿(2010).莫名其妙的追捧——对西门庆“受捧现象”的文化思考,《中学政治教学参考》10, pp. 4-5. Ximen Qing(西门庆)was depicted in Chinese literature as a corrupt social climber, a lustful merchant, a murder and an unethical luster living in the Song dynasty. The guy was anything but a good person.
92 In pre-modern China, books and scholarship are generally divided into four parts: jing (classics), shi (historiography), zi (masters in different schools), and ji (collections of literary and miscellaneous works). The most important is jingxue (classic studies). Shi and zi are relatively less significant. Ji comes last.
Adams, J. (2013). The role of underwater archaeology in framing and facilitating the Chinese national strategic agenda, In T. Blumenfied and H. Silverman (eds.), Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New York: Springer, 261-282.
Alivizatou, M. (2011). Intangible heritage and erasure:Rethinking cultural preservation and contemporary museum practice, International Journal of Cultural Property 18(1): 37-60.
Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality, London: Routledge.
Ashworth, G. J. and P. J. Larkham (eds.) (1994). Building a New Heritage, London: Routledge.
Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2007) Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies, London: Pluto Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, M. Holquist (ed.), C. Emerson and M. Holquist (trans.), Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems ofDostoevsky's Poetics, C. Emerson (trans, and ed.), Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, V. W. McGee (trans.), C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds.), Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M./P. N. Medvedev (1978). The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: a Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics, Albert J. Wehrle (trans.), Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M./V. N. Volosinov (1986). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik (trans.), Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Balshaw, M. and L. Kennedy (eds.) (2000). Urban Space and Representation, Sterling, VA:Pluto Press.
Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew and R. Jones (eds.) (2008). Advances in Discourse Studies, London: Routledge.
Billig, M. (2000). Guest editorial: Towards a critique of the critical, Discourse & Society 11(3):291-292.
Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.) Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 35-46.
Billig, M. (2008a). The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominalization, Discourse & Society 19(6):783-800.
Billig, M. (2008b). Nominalizing and de-nominalizing: a reply, Discourse & Society 19(6):829-841.
Blommaert, J. (2001). Context is/as critique, Critique of Anthropology 21(1):13-32.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Blumenfield, T. and H. Silverman (eds.) (2013). Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New York: Springer.
Breglia, L. (2006). Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage, Austin: University of Texas Press.
Brett, D. (1996). The Construction of Heritage, Cork: Cork University Press.
Bruner, E. M. (1986). Ethnography as narrative. In V. Turner and E. M. Bruner (eds.) The Anthropology of Experience, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 139-155.
Burr, V. (2003). An Introduction to Social Constructionism (Second Edition), London: Routledge.
Butler, B. (2006). Heritage and the present past. In C. Tilley, S. Keuchler, and M. Rowlands (eds.), The Handbook of Material Culture, London: Sage, 463-479.
Butler, B. (2007). Return to Alexandria: An Ethnography of Cultural Heritage Revivalism and Museum Memory, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Byrne, D. (1991). Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management, History and Anthropology 5(2),269-276.
Byrne, D (2009). A critique of unfeeling heritage. In L. Smith and N. Akagawa (eds.) Intangible Heritage, New York: Routledge, 229-252.
Cameron, F. and S. Kenderdine (2007). Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage:A Critical Discourse, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carbaugh, D. (1988). Talking American:Cultural Discourses on Donhue, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating Selves: The Communication of Social Identities in American Scenes, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Carbaugh, D. (2005). Cultures in Conversation, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Carbaugh, D. and L. Rudnick (2006). Which Place, What Story?:Cultural Discourses at the Border of the Blackfeet Reservation and Glacier National Park, Great Plains Quarterly 26(3):167-184.
Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis:Communication practices and intercultural encounters, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36(3): 167-182.
Carbaugh, D., T. A. Gibson, and T. Milburn (1997). A view of communication and culture: Scenes in an ethnic cultural center and a private college. In B. Kovacic (ed), Emerging Theories of Human Communication, Albany: State University of New York Press,1-24.
Carbaugh, D., E. Molina-Markham, E. V. Nuciforo, and B. van Over (2011). Discursive reflexivity in the ethnography of communication: Cultural discourse analysis, Cultural Studies<-> Critical Methodologies 11(2):153-164.
Casey, E. (1993). Getting back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Casey, E. (1997). The Fate of Place, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chard, R. L. (2010). Perspectives on "Li" and "Ritual" in Western Sinology, World Sinology, (Autumn):29-37.
Chiapello, E. and N. Fairclough (2002). Understanding the new management ideology: a transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism, Discourse & Society 13(2):185-208.
Chilton, P., H. L. Tian and R. Wodak (2010). Reflections on discourse and critique in China and the West, Journal of Language and Politics 9(4): 489-507.
Clifford, J. (1983). On ethnographic authority, Representations 2 (spring):118-146.
Clifford, J. (2004). Looking several ways:anthropology and native heritage in Alaska, Current Anthropology 45(1):5-23.
Clifford, J. and G. E. Marcus (eds.) (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Coffin, C. (2006). History Discourse: The Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation, London: Continuum.
Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others, London: Routledge.
De Beaugrande, R. (2006). Critical discourse analysis: history, ideology, methodology, Studies in Language & Capitalism 1:29-56.
De Cesari, C. (2008). Cultural Heritage beyond the "State":Palestinian Heritage between Nationalism and Transnationalism, PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
De Cesari, C. (2010). World heritage and mosaic universalism:A view from Palestine, Journal of Social Archaeology 10(3):299-324.
De Jong, F and M. Rowlands (eds.) (2007). Reclaiming Heritage: Alternative Imaginaries of Memory in West Africa, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Second Edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1-29.
Dematte, P. (2012). After the flood: cultural heritage and cultural politics in Chongqing Municipality and the Three Gorges Areas, China, Future Anterior 9(1):48-64.
Dicks, B. (2000). Heritage, Place and Community, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Duara, P. (1988). Superscribing symbols:The myth of Guandi, Chinese god of war, The Journal of Asian Studies 47(4):778-795.
Duara, P. (1995). Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of History from Modern China, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography, Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press.
Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
English Heritage (2000). Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment, London:English Heritage. http//:www.english-heritage.org.uk/filestore/policy/ government/mori/finalreport/11.pdf, accessed on Nov.15,2012.
English Heritage (2005). Heritage Counts: The State of the Historic Environment, London:English Heritage, with the support of Farrer and Co., Cowley Manor,_NFU Mutual and C. Hoare and Co.
Englund, H., and J. Leach (2000). Ethnography and the meta-narratives of modernity, Current Anthropology 41(2): 225-248.
Evers, S., and C. Seagle (2012). Stealing the sacred: Why 'global heritage' discourse is perceived as a frontal attack on local heritage-making in Madagascar, Madagascar Conservation & Development 7(2S): 97-106.
Fabian, J. (1990). Presence and representation: The Other and anthropological writing, Critical Inquiry, 16(4): 753-772.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power, London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London:Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in transdisciplinary research. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53-70.
Fairclough, N. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: reply to Michael Billig, Discourse & Society 19(4): 811-819.
Feld, S. and K. Basso (eds.) (1996). Senses of Place, Santa Fe, NW: SAR Press.
Flaherty, M. G., N. K. Denzin, P. K. Manning, and D. Snow (2002). Review symposium: Crisis in representation, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 31 (4): 478-516.
Fleming, D. (2008). City of Rhetoric: Revitalizing the Public Sphere in Metropolitan America, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Flowerdew, J. (2012). Critical Discourse Analysis in Historiography: The Case of Hong Kong's Evolving Identity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fowler, P. (1992). The Past in Contemporary Society: Then, Now, London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, A. M. Sheridan (trans.), London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London:Allen Lane.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977, C. Gordon (ed.), New York: Pentheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader, New York: Pantheon,76-100.
Foucault, M. (1986). Of other spaces, Diacritics 16(1):22-27.
Foucault, M. (1989). The Order of Things: Archaeology of the Human Sciences, London: Routledge.
Gadamer, H-G (1975).Truth and Method, J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall (trans.), London:Sheed and Ward.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (Second Edition), New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2011). How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit, New York: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, New York: Basic Books.
Gosden, C. and Y. Marshall (1999). The cultural biography of objects, World Archaeology 31(2):169-178.
Grace, G. (1987). The Linguistic Construction of Reality, London: Croom Helm.
Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge:capital or culture?, Urban Studies 39:1003-1017.
Graham, B., G. Ashworth and J. Tunbridge, J. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy, London: Arnold.
Gumperz, J. and D. Hymes (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical justification. In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1994). Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hamill, S. and J. P. Seaton (trans. and eds.) (1999). The Essential Chuang Tzu, Boston: Shambha.
Hall, D. L. and R. T. Ames (1998). Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London: Sage in association with the Open University, 72-81.
Hall, S. (2005). Whose heritage? Un-settling the heritage, re-imaging the post-nation. In J. Littler and R. Naidoo (eds.) The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of 'Race', London: Routledge, 21-31.
Harrison, R. (ed.) (2010). Understanding the Politics of Heritage, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical Approaches, London:Routledge.
Harvey, D. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies, International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4): 319-338.
Heer, H., W. Manoschek, A. Pollak, and R. Wodak (eds.) (2008). The Discursive Construction of History: Remembering the Wehrmacht's War of Annihilation, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time, J. Stambaugh (trans.), Albany: State University of New York Press.
Heidegger, M. (2001a). The poet as thinker. In Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics,1-14.
Heidegger, M. (2001b). Building, dwelling, thinking. In Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics, 141-160.
Heidegger, M. (2001c). The thing. In Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics,161-184.
Hewison, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline, London: Methuen.
Hirsch, E. and M. O'Hanlon (eds.) (1995). The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ho, W. C. (2008). Writing experience: Does ethnography convey a crisis of representation, or an ontological break with the everyday world?, Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne De Sociologie 45(4):343-365.
Hobsbawm, E. J. and T. Ranger (eds.) (1983). The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hofstadter, A. (2001). Introduction. In M. Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics, ix-xxii.
Hoskins, J. (1998). Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Story of People's Lives, London: Routledge.
Howard, P. (2003). Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity, London: Continuum.
Jorgensen, M. W. and L. Phillips (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, London: Sage.
Jullien, F. (2000). Detour and Access: Strategies of Meanings in China and Greece, S. Hawkes (trans.), New York: Zone Books.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64-91.
Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication, London: Arnold.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, T. Gora, A. Jardine and L. S. Roudiez (trans.), L. S. Roudiez (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in Poetic Language, M. Waller (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (ed.) The Kristeva Reader, New York: Columbia University Press, 34-61.
Lai, G. L., M. Demas and N. Agnew (2004). Valuing the past in China: the seminal influence of Liang Sicheng on heritage conservation, Orientations 35(2): 82-89.
Lao-Tse. (2006). The Tao Te Ching, J. Legge (trans.), Raleigh, NC: Hayes Barton Press.
Lazar, M. (2005). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Legge, J. (trans.) (1876). The She King, or, The Book of Ancient Poetry, London: Trubner.
Legge, J. (trans.) (1885). Li Ki, The Book of Rites. In The Sacred Books of the East (Vols. 27 and 28) Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Legge, J. (trans.) (1991). Confucius Analects. In The Chinese Classics, Taipei: SMC Publishing.
Littler, J., and R. Naidoo (eds.) (2005). The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of 'Race', London: Routledge.
Liu, H. M. and Z. J. Wu (2012). Exploring the Aura of Chinese Leisure Heritage-A Narrative Construction of Dongwushan Cultural Memory. In J. Dodd and V. Sharma (eds.) Leisure and Tourism:Cultural Paradigms, Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications, 213-230.
Lou, J. (2010). Chinatown transformed:Ideology, power, and resources in narrative place-making, Discourse Studies 12(5), 625-647.
Low, S. M. and D. Lawrence-Zuniga (eds.) (2003). The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowenthal, D. (1998). The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Second Edition), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Luning, S. (2007). Ritual territories as local heritage? Discourse on disruptions in society and nature in Maane, Burkina Faso, Africa 77(1):86-103.
Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics, and Performance, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Mancini-Lander, D. J. (2012). Memory on the Boundaries of Empire: Narrating Place in the Early Modern Local Historiography of Yazd, PhD dissertation, the University of Michigan.
Marcus, G. E. and D. Cushman (1982). Ethnographies as texts, Annual Review of Anthropology 11:25-69.
Marcus, G. E. and M. J. Fischer (1986). Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Martin, J. R. (2008). Incongruent and proud: de-vilifying 'nominalization', Discourse & Society 19(6): 801-810.
Martin, J. R. and R. Wodak (eds.) (2003). Re/Reading the Past: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of History, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
May, S. (2001). Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, London: Longman.
Morris, B. (2014). In defence of oblivion: the case of Dunwich, Suffolk, International Journal of Heritage Studies 20(2): 196-216.
Natzmer, C. (2002). Remembering and Forgetting: Creative Expression and Reconciliation in Post-Pinochet Chile. In J. Clima and M. Cattell (eds.), Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives, Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press,161-180.
Nietzsche, F. (1997). On the uses and disadvantages of history for life. In F. Nietzsche, Untimely Meditations, D. Breazeale (ed.), R. J. Hollingdale (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-123.
Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de memoire, Representations 26: 7-24.
Oakes, T. (2013). Heritage as improvement: Cultural display and contested governance in rural China, Modern China 39(4): 380-407.
Ochs, E. (1992) Indexing gender: language as an interactive phenomenon. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 335-358.
O'Donnell, D. (2010). Discursive ethics. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, and E. Wiebe (eds.) Encyclopedia of Case study Research (Vol. 1), London:Sage.
Potter, J. (2008). Discourse analysis. In L. Given (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, London: Sage, 218-221.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness, London:Pion.
Richardson, J., M. Krzyzanowski, D. Machin, and R. Wodak (eds.) (2013). Advances in Critical Discourse Studies, London: Routledge.
Rodenberg, J. and Hulst, R. (2012). Governance of heritage:Discourses and power in heritage policy networks. Proceedings of the Association of Critical Heritage Studies Inaugural Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 5-8.
Rumsey, A. (2004). Ethnographic macro-tropes and anthropological theory, Anthropological Theory 4(3):267-298.
Salemink, O. (2012). Appropriating culture: The politics of intangible cultural heritage in Vietnam. In Hue-Tam Ho Tai and Mark Sidel (eds.) State, Society and the Market in Contemporary Vietnam: Property, Power and Value. London: Routledge, 158-180.
Sangren, P. S. (1988). Rhetoric and the authority of ethnography: "Post-Modernism" and the social reproduction of texts, Current Anthropology 29(3):405-435.
Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schmidt, P. (forthcoming). Community Heritage in Africa: Preserving a Continent Village by Village, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Schmidt, P. and J. Walz (2007). Silences and mentions in history making, Journal of Historical Archaeology 41 (4):129-146.
Scollo, M. (2011). Cultural approaches to discourse analysis:A theoretical and methodological conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh's Cultural Discourse Theory, Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6(1):1-32.
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice, London:Routledge.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach, Oxford: Blackwell.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon (2003). Discourse in Place: Language in the Material World, London: Routledge.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet, New York: Routledge.
Shi-xu. (2005). A Cultural Approach to Discourse, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shi-xu. (2006). A multiculturalist approach to discourse theory, Semiotica 158(1/4): 383-400.
Shi-xu (2009a). Asian discourse studies: foundations and directions, Asian Journal of Communication 19(4): 384-97.
Shi-xu. (2009b). Reconstructing Eastern paradigms of discourse studies, Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4(1):29-48.
Shi-xu (2012). Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach to human discourses, Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies 26(4): 484-503.
Shi-xu (2014) Chinese Discourse Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Silverman, H. and T. Blumenfield. (2013). Cultural heritage politics in China: An introduction. In T. Blumenfied and H. Silverman (eds.) Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New York: Springer, 3-22.
Slingerland, E. (trans.) (2003). Confucius Analects: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianapolis Hackett Publishing Company.
Smart, G. (2008). Ethnographic-based discourse analysis: Uses, issues and prospects. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew and R. Jones (eds.) Advances in Discourse Studies, London: Routledge.
Smart, G. (2012). Discourse-oriented ethnography. In P. Gee and M. Handford (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, New York: Routledge.
Smith, L. (2004). Archeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage, London: Routledge.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge.
Smith, L. and N. Akagawa (eds.) (2009). Intangible Heritage, London:Routledge.
Smith, L., P, Shackel and G. Campbell (eds.) (2011). Heritage, Labour and the Working Class, London: Routledge.
Smithson, R. (1979). The Writings of Robert Smithson, N. Holt (ed.), New York: New York University Press.
Stahl, A. B. (2001). Making History in Banda: Anthropological Visions of Africa's Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steele J. (trans.) (1917). The I-li, Or, Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial, London: Probsthain & Co.
Stoddart, W. (2008). Remembering in a World of Forgetting: Thoughts on Tradition and Postmodernism, M. S. de Azevedo and A. V. Queiroz (eds.) Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.
Stone, P. G. and B. L. Molyneaux (eds.) (1994). The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education, London and New York:Routledge.
Su, X. and Teo, P. (2009). The Politics of Heritage Tourism in China: A View from Lijiang. London: Routledge.
Trouilllot, M-R.(1995). Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press.
Tu, C-I. (ed). (2000). Classics and Interpretation: the Hermeneutic Traditions in Chinese Culture. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers.
Tuan, Y. F. (1979). Landscape of Fear, New York: Pantheon Books.
Tuan, Y. F. (1991). Language and the making of place: A narrative-descriptive approach, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81(4): 684-696.
Tuan, Y. F. (2001). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tunbridge, J. (1984). Whose heritage to conserve? Cross-cultural reflections on political dominance and urban heritage, The Canadian Geographer/Le Geographe canadien 28(2):171-180.
Tunbridge, J. and Ashworth, G. (1996) Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict, Chichester: Wiley.
UNESCO (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Editor's Introduction: The Study of Discourse: An Introduction. In Tuen A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies (Vol. I), London: Sage, xix-xlii.
Walsh, K. (1992). The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-modern World, London: Routledge.
Wang, Y. E. (2003). Tope and Topos: the Leifeng Pagoda and the discourse of the demonic. In J. Zeitlin and L. Liu (eds.), Writing and Materiality in China, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 488-552.
Wang, J. (1996). High Culture Fever: Politics, Aesthetics, and Ideology in Deng's China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Waterton, E. (2007). Heritage as discourse: an institutionalised construction of the past in the UK. In D. Hull, S. Grabow and E. Waterton (eds.) Which Past, Whose Future? Treatments of the Past at the Start of the 21st Century. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 31-39.
Waterton, E. (2009). Sights of sites: picturing heritage, power and exclusion, Journal of Heritage Tourism 4(1):37-56.
Waterton, E. (2010a). Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain, Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Waterton, E. (2010b). Branding the past: The visual imagery of England's heritage. In E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds.) Culture, Heritage and Representations: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Waterton, E., L. Smith, and G. Campbell (2006). The utility of discourse analysis to heritage studies:the Burra Charter and social inclusion, International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4):339-355.
Waterton, E. and L. Smith (2009). There is no such thing as heritage. In E. Waterton and L. Smith (eds.), Taking Archaeology out of Heritage, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in 19th-century Europe, Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press.
White, H. (1987). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In The Content of the Form:Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-25.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse, London: Longman.
Wodak, R. (2006). History in the making/The making of history: The'German Wehrmacht'in the collective and individual memories in Austria, Journal of Language and Politics 5(1):125-154.
Wodak R. and R. De Cillia (2007). Commemorating the past: The discursive construction of official narratives about the'Rebirth of the Second Austrian Republic', Discourse & Communication 1(3):337-363.
Wodak, R., R. De Cillia, M. Reisigl and K. Liebhart (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity, A. Hirsch and R. Mitter (trans.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (eds.) (2009). Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (Second Edition), London:Sage.
Wu, Z. J. (2005). Teachers' Knowing in Curriculum Change:A Critical Discourse Study of Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wu, Z. J. (2010) Heritage and authenticity with Confucian discursive ethics: Reflecting on two ongoing heritage recovery projects in China, invited speech presented at the White Rose East Asia Centre, University of Leeds.
Wu, Z. J. (2013). Chinese mode of historical thinking and its transformation in pedagogical discourse. In T. Popkewitz (ed.) Rethinking the History of Education: Transnational Perspectives on Its Questions, Methods, and Knowledge, New York: Palgrave Macmillan,51-72.
Wu, Z. J. (2014)'Speak in the place of the sages':Rethinking the sources of pedagogic meanings, Journal of Curriculum Studies 43(3): 320-331.
Wu, Z. J. (forthcoming). Let fragments speak for themselves: vernacular heritage, emptiness and Confucian discourse of narrating the past, International Journal of Heritage Studies.
Wu, Z. J. and Q. X. Lv (2007). Discourse of Chinese medicine and Westernization. In Shi-xu (ed.), Discourse as Cultural Struggle, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,155-176.
Wu, Z. J, and C. Y. Han (2010). Cultural transformation of educational discourse in China: perspectives of multiculturalism/interculturalism. In C. A. Grant and A. Portera (eds.), Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Enhancing Global Interconnectedness, New York: Routledge, 225-244.
Wu, Z. J. and M. X. Hu (2010). Ritual hermeneutics as the source of meaning: Interpreting the fabric of Chinese culture. China Media Research 6(2):104-113.
Xie, J. Y. (2010). The Discursive Formation of Chinese Architectural Heritage, MA thesis, Zhejiang University.
Yim, L. C. H. (2009). The Poet-Historian Qian Qianyi, London: Routledge.
Zhang, H. Y., P. Chilton, Y. D. He and W. Jing (2011). Critique across cultures:Some questions for CDA, Critical Discourse Studies 8(2):95-107.
仓修良.(1990).《方志学通论》,济南：齐鲁书社.
(清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本.
陈绍灿.(2010).莫名其妙的追捧——对西门庆“受捧现象”的文化思考,《中学政治教学参考》,(10)：4-5.
(清)程庭鹭.(1999).序,载(清)姚承绪.《吴越访古录》,姜小青校点,南京：江苏古籍出版社.
丁建新.(2010).作为社会符号的“反语言”,《外语学刊》,(2)：76-83.
丁建新、沈文静(主编).(2013a).《边缘话语分析》,天津：南开大学出版社.
丁建新、沈文静.(2013b).边缘话语分析：一些基本的理论问题,《外语与外语教学》,(4)：17-21.
杜维运.(1981).西方史学输入中国考,载《与西方史家论中国史学》,台北：东大图书有限公司。
(唐)房玄龄等.(1974).《晋书》(第七册),北京：中华书局.
龚坚.(2013).《喧嚣的新村：遗产运动与村落政治》,北京：北京大学出版社.
辜正坤.(2007).中国外语学术自主创新：学术研究理路和前途展望——从单向殖文主义到双向互动的比较文化转向.《中国外语》,(1)：21-27.
过常宝.(2006).论《史记》的“太史公曰”和“互见法”,《唐都学刊》,(5)：1-7.
(清)郝玉麟等监修,鲁曾煜等编纂.《广东通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
胡宝珍.(2006).“互见法”探源,《河北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(4)：103-108.
黄进兴.(1997).中国近代史学的双重危机：试论“新史学”的诞生及其所面临的困境,《中国文化研究所学报》,(6)：263-285.
(清)江永.《仪礼释宫增注》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
(清)嵇曾筠监修,沈翼机编纂.《浙江通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书.
李春霞.(2013).由名胜古迹谈遗产的中国范式：以“天地之中”为例,《贵州社会科学》,(4)：16-21.
李春霞、彭兆荣.(2008).无形文化遗产遭遇的三种“政治”,《民族艺术》,(3)：7-18.
李剑国.(2007).《新辑搜神记》,北京：中华书局.
李军.(2005).什么是文化遗产?——对一个当代观念的知识考古,《文艺研究》,(4)：123-131.
李立.(2010).《在学者与村民之间的文化遗产——村落知识生产的经验研究、话语分析与反思》,北京：人民出版社.
(清)李颙.(1996).《二曲集》,陈俊民点校,北京：中华书局.
(明)林应祥修,叶秉敬等纂.(2009).天启衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,351-610.
刘畅.(2002).述而不作：作为一种思维方式,《天津社会科学》,(6)：116-121.
刘婉华.(2003).中国古代建筑的礼乐文化意蕴,《南方论坛》,(2)：28-33.
(唐)刘知几撰,(清)浦起龙释.(1978).《史通通释》(上),上海：上海古籍出版社.
陆敏珍.(2012).宋代地方志编纂中的“地方”书写,《史学理论研究》,(2)：59-69.
鲁迅.(1973).伪自由书,载鲁迅先生纪念委员会编.《鲁迅全集》,北京：人民文学出版社.
(汉)毛亨传,(汉)郑玄笺,(唐)孔颖达疏.(2009).《毛诗正义》(十三经注疏,标点本),北京：北京大学出版社.
彭兆荣.(2008a).《遗产：反思与阐释》,昆明：云南教育出版社.
彭兆荣.(2008b).遗产学与遗产运动：表述与制造,《文艺研究》,(2)：84-91.
彭兆荣.(2013).我国非物质文化遗产理论体系探索,《贵州社会科学》,(4)：4-8.
彭兆荣、李春霞.(2013).我国文化遗产体系的生成养育制度,《厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2)：1-11.
(明)沈杰修,吾冔等纂.(2009).弘治衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,1-128.
(清)盛世佐.《仪礼集编》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
(汉)司马迁.(1959).《史记》,北京：中华书局.
(汉)司马迁.(2002).报任安书,载(清)吴楚材、吴调侯编,《古文观止》(上册),北京：中国文史出版社.
阮仪三.(2000).《历史环境保护的理论与实践》,上海：上海科学技术出版社.
史密斯、侯松、谢洁怡.(2014).学术与重构：遗产、博物馆再审视一一劳拉简·史密斯教授专访,《东南文化》,(2)：11-16.
施旭.(2010).《文化话语研究：探索中国的理论、方法与问题》,北京：北京大学出版社.
(宋)苏洵著,曾枣(?)、金成礼笺注.(1993).《嘉佑集笺注》,上海：上海古籍出版社.
田海龙.(2007).实践结点研究的批评视角,《外语与外语教学》,(3)：1-4.
田凯.(2012).清代成都官署的建设,《西南交通大学学报(社会科学版)》,(5)：103-109.
(清)田文镜、王士俊等监修,孙灏、顾栋高等编纂.《河南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
王宁.(2013).中国文化走出去：外语学科大有作为,《中国外语》,(2)：11-12.
王运良.(2009).《中国文物保护单位制度研究》,复旦大学博士学位论文.
魏爱棠、彭兆荣.(2011).遗产运动中的政治与认同,《厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(5)：1-8.
吴宗杰.(2006).中西话语权势关系的语言哲学探源：话语学的文化研究视角,《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(2)：170-177.
吴宗杰.(2008).历史学的解构与重构：泛化“封建”的话语分析.《武汉大学学报(人文科学版)》,(5)：522-527.
吴宗杰.(2009).跨文化视角下的“中国学研究”,“当代浙学论坛：浙江省外文学会2009年会”主旨发言,浙江宁波.
吴宗杰.(2012a).重建坊巷文化肌理：衢州水亭门街区文化遗产研究,《文化艺术研究》,(3)：19-27.
吴宗杰.(2012b).话语与文化遗产的本土意义重建,《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(5)：28-40.
吴宗杰、胡美馨(2010).超越表征：中国话语的诠释传统及其当下观照,《文史哲》(4)：5-13.
吴宗杰、侯松.(2012).批评话语研究的超学科与跨文化转向——以文化遗产的中国话语重构为例.《广东外语外贸大学学报》,(6)：12-16.
吴宗杰、姜克银.(2009).中国文化人类学研究的话语转向.《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(5)：83-93.
吴宗杰、余华(2011).《史记》叙事范式与民族志书写的本土化,《广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(1)：70-77.
吴宗杰、等(2012).《衢州水亭门街区文化遗产研究报告》,未出版稿.
吴宗杰、余华.(2013).民族志与批评话语分析,《外语与外语教学》,(4)：11-16.
向燕南.(2013).史学的求善诉求与传统史学之道德批判的省思,《人文杂志》,(12)：75-81.
(汉)许慎撰,(清)段玉裁注.(1981).《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社.
(明)徐师曾.(1998).《文体明辩序说》,罗根谭校点,北京：人民文学出版社.
杨伯峻.(1980).《论语译注》,北京：中华书局.
杨军昌.(1999).《中国方志学概论》,贵阳：贵州人民出版社.
杨满仁.(2011).“比兴”辨略,《文艺评论》,(4)：13-17.
(清)杨廷望等纂修.(2009).康熙衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,611-1080.
(明)杨准修,赵镗等纂.(2009).嘉靖衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,129-350.
(清)姚承绪.(1999).《吴越访古录》,姜小青校点,南京：江苏古籍出版社.
(清)姚宝煌修,范崇楷等纂.(1970).《西安县志》,台北：成文出版社有限公司.
喻学才.(2007).中国古代遗产保护的七大特征,《旅游学研究》,(00)：231-234.
喻学才.(2008).中国古代遗产保护实践述略,《华中建筑》,(3)：1-6.
喻学才.(2012).中国遗产保护传统制度研究,《东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(1)：117-122.
张革非.(1992).《中国方志学纲要》,重庆：西南师范大学出版社.
张世君.(2011).礼经建筑空间的政治叙事,《江西社会科学》,(1)：37-47.
(清)张廷玉等.(1974).《明史》(第二十四册),北京：中华书局.
(清)章学诚.(1985a).《章学诚遗书》,北京：文物出版社.
(清)章学诚著作,叶瑛校注.(1985b).《文史通义校注》,北京：中华书局.
(清)张玉书等编纂.(2002).《康熙字典》(标点整理本),上海：汉语大词典出版社.
(民国)赵尔巽等.(1976).《清史稿》,北京：中华书局.
(清)赵弘恩监修,黄之隽编纂.《江南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
赵心田.(1995).新方志注释论,《中国地方志》,(1)：63-67.
赵旭东.(2009).龙牌与中华民族认同的乡村建构,《广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2)：18-24.
(汉)郑玄注,孔安国正义(2000).《礼记正义》,《十三经注疏》整理委员会整理.北京：北京大学出版社.
(民国)郑永禧.(1984).《衢县志》,台北：成文出版社有限公司.
(宋)朱熹.(1983).《四书章句集注》,北京：中华书局.
朱煜杰.(2011).中西遗产保护比较的几点思考：一个跨文化的视角,《东南文化》,(3)：118-122.
2 See "China-Intangible Cultural Heritage" at the UNESCO Intangible Heritage Website: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00311&cp=CN.
3 It is reported that 70,000 items are nominated in the Chinese intangible heritage listing system, which includes national, provincial, municipal and county-level lists. See Intangible Cultural Heritage in China(中国的非物质文化遗产)at http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-09/27/content1169344.htm. As for tangible heritage, China has an enlisting system for conservation called wenwu baohu danwei (文物保护单位),which is used to be translated as "unit of cultural relics" and now more often rendered as "unit of cultural heritage". There are virtually uncountable national, provincial and municipal key units of cultural heritage in this system.
4 The interview was conducted in English by Hou Song and Xie Jieyi in Hangzhou on Nov. 6, 2013 and was transcribed by Xie Jieyi. I am very grateful to Xie for sending me the transcription of the interview.
5 By this, I am referring to not only those who label themselves critical discourse analysts, but also other discourse scholars whose research has a critical orientation to social and cultural issues. Excluded are discourse analysts and text linguists who do not consider social, cultural problems in real life the orientation of their research.
6 Sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) of the UK, it is officially the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. See the entry "English Heritage" in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Heritage) for an introduction and its official website (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/) for more.
7 Zhongguoshi Xulun(中国史叙论On Chinese Historiography) was first published in September, 1901 in the Qingyibao(清议报)and Xin Shixue (新史学New Historiography) was first published in February, 1902 in the Xinmin Congbao (新民丛报).
8 Zhu passed away in 2011.
9 By "old Quzhou urbanity", I refer to the urban area of the old Quzhou enclosed by the ancient city walls.
10 In the remainder of this dissertation, the translations from Chinese sources are all mine if not otherwise pointed out.
11 The way in marking authorship for pre-modern Chinese local gazetteers was unique. The commissioner of the local gazetteer compiling, always the chief governor of the locale (county, prefecture, province), was put at the first. His contribution in commissioning and sponsoring the compiling practice is called'‘修”(xiu)in Chinese. Then the chief compiler (and his major co-workers) was named. Their contribution was called“纂”(zuan) in Chinese. This traditional order of marking authorship is followed when I list these prefectural gazetteers and the county gazetteers later.
12 The simplified reference to each of these gazetteers follows Zheng Yongxi's way of referring to them. And for the one compiled by him, I will call Zheng's gazetteer.
13 Mingsheng guji (名胜古迹) is usually understood as a compounding of mingsheng and guji. In Li Chunxia's article, she also explicates the word this way.
14 See, for example, Xinhua Dictionary Online http://xh.5156edu.com/html5/230525.html and Handian(汉典)http://www.zdic.net/cd/ci/5/ZdicE5Zdic8FZdicA479483.htm.
15 Wenwu Baohu Danwei(文物保护单位) refers to the immovable cultural heritages in mainland China. It is a main part of Chinese heritage preservation system. For more about this, see王运良.《中国文物保护单位制度研究》,复旦大学博士学位论文,2009.
16 http://baike.baidu.com/view/112408.htm.
17 (汉)许慎撰,(清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社,1981,p.88.
18 Ibid. After the English translation I reproduce the original text so that readers with knowledge of classical language can have not only a better view of my analytical process, but also wider space to interpret the text themselves. This format will be followed throught the whole dissertation. Moreover, most of the orginial Chinese text I quote does not have punctuations. In this one and others in the remainder of this dissertation, punctuations are all mine, if the source text listed in the References is not marked as punctuated version(标点本)or names of those who have done the punctuation.
19 "zi gu zai xi" is a phrase from a poem entitled Na (那) in the Book of Poetry.
20 (汉)许慎撰、(清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社,1981,p.88.
21 Ibid, p.7O. The distinction between bigger-and smaller-size characters is maintained as appeared in the source text. The bigger-size characters are the original text in Shuowen Jiezi, and the smaller-size characters are Duan Yucai's commentaries. In my English translation, this distinction is followed. In the remainder of the dissertation, the distinctions in word size in the citations and my English translation all resemble how they appear in the Chinese original.
22 See dao in Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/582901/dao.
23 (清)郝玉麟等监修,(清)鲁曾煜等编纂.《广东通志》,文渊阁四库全书本,卷五十三.
24 (清)田文镜、王士俊等监修,(清)孙灏、顾栋高等编纂.《河南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本,卷五十一The translation of the quotation from the Book of Poetry is copied from James Legge (see Legge 1876: 264).
25 (清)赵弘恩监修, (清)黄之隽编纂.《江南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本,卷二十九.
26 Ibid.
27 (汉)许慎撰,(清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》上海：上海古籍出版社,1981,p.408.
28 (清)张玉书等编纂.《康熙字典》(标点整理本)上海：汉语大词典出版社,2002, p.1112. The translation of the quotation from the I Ching is Legge's version.
29 (汉)许慎撰, (清)段玉裁注.《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社,1981年,p.205.
30 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷首.
31 A biography of Zhou Zhao is seen in the volume of Rulin(儒林Confucian scholars) in the gazetteer (see姚宝煌等1970：1295-1296).
32 The book is divided into five parts: Tian (Heaven), Di (Earth), Ren (Humans), Wu (Objects), Shi (Events) and thus entitled A Collection on Five Issues.
33 Sanqu is another way to call Quzhou.
34 I will explicate the use of annotation in the next chapter.
35 (清)嵇曾筠监修,沈翼机编纂.《浙江通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
36 In Yao's gazetteer, it is called the Five-branch Camphor (五枝樟),and in Zheng's gazetteer it is called the Five-finger Camphor(五指樟).
37 Mu(亩)is a Chinese measurement of area. 1 mu is about 0.0667 hectares.
38 Penghou(彭侯)refers to the spirit in the tree. It has human's face and dog's body. It can be eaten. See李剑国.《新辑搜神记》,北京：中华书局,2007,p.267.
39 The Mount Emei is in Sichuan, Southwestern China. It is one of the most famous mountains in China. The idea that this mountain suppressed the seat of the prefectural government might be a consideration on the perspective of Fengshui.
40 Zhang (丈) is a Chinese measurement. 1 zhang is about 3.33 meters. 口 is used to refer to a character unrecognizable at the place in the original. One may guess that the word is 许 or 余. Not knowing that character exactly, I suppose it is safe to translate "丈口" into several meters.
41 Although intangible heritage is a concept Eastern countries initialize to confront Western definition of world heritage that prioritizes physically-tangible remains of the past, it does not totally remove the consideration of materiality and is still caught by the AHD (see for example, Smith 2006; Waterton 2010a).
42 Zhengmeng (征梦) means that the dream is later verified in real life.
43 For example, in Shen's and Zhao's gazetteers, the entry of the Zhengmeng Pavilion, what is seen is also the said story, but with a few more details(沈杰等2009：40；杨准等2009：161)；in Yao's and Zheng's gazetteers, that story and a couple of poems related constitute the entry of the Zhengmeng Pavilion consists(姚宝煃等1970：544-545；郑永禧1984：762).
44 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷三.
45 Li(里)is a Chinese measurement of distance, 1 li equals to 500 meters.
46 See Appendix 1
47 The Li classics include the Zhouli (Rites of Zhou), the Yili (Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial) and the Liji (Book of Rites). Together they are called "Sanli" (Three Rites). They are the most ancient texts that document Li. And in the Chinese history there are numerous books studying and making interpretations of them.
48 (清)盛世佐.《仪礼集编》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本,卷六.
49 (清)江永.《仪礼释宫增注》文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
50 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷三.
51 Ibid.
52 Zhuangyuan (状元)was the title for the one who won the first place in the final highest level of the imperial exams.
53 Here my attention is on discourse representation. I will come to the intertextual register later.
54 An official whose responsibility is compiling history.
55 (清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂：《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本,卷三.
56 (宋)苏洵著,曾枣荘、金成礼笺注.《嘉佑集笺注》.上海：上海古籍出版社,1993年,p.232.
57 The deputy head of the legislative bureau of government.
58 These two volumes collect prose written about different places in Quzhou. Most of the prose are inscriptional records.
59 Wei Su(危素1303-1372)(?)was a scholar-official in the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties. He was also a famous calligrapher. Huang Jinhua(黄金华)is another way to call Huang Jin (黄溍1277-1357).
60 An official position first set up in the Tang dynasty. During the Song dynasty, it became a position without much real power.
61 An official equals to the deputy prefecture during the Song dynasty.
62 See http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1334.
63 Fei Ge Liu Dan means a flying-like penthouse with beautiful red colors floating.
64 (清)嵇曾筠监修,沈翼机编纂.《浙江通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书,卷二百二十.
65 Quzhou and Jinhua were all in the territory of the Dongyang prefecture at that time.
66 (汉)毛亨传, (汉)郑玄笺, (唐)孔颖达疏.《毛诗正义》(十三经注疏,标点本),北京：北京大学出版社,1999年,p.10.
67 The Chaojing Gate was another name for the Shutting Gate.
68 Nianer refers to the Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty, Xiao Yan(萧衍464-549)This is his childhood name.
69 A stupa is a mound-like or semi-hemispherical structure containing Buddhist relics, typically the ashes of Buddhist monks, used by Buddhists as a place of meditation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupa).
70 The Min Rebellion (闽变)refers to the war Geng Jingzhong (耿精忠) launched against the Qing government from 1673 to 1676. He started from Fuzhou, Fujian and soon controlled the whole province. He then moved his troops to attack Zhejiang.
71 Siduo is the official in charge of cultural and educational affairs.
72 The Kui Star, or Kuixing refers to the four stars in the bowl of the big dipper, or the one at the tip of the bowl.
73 Keming means the scholarly honors won in the imperial exams (keju). It was of three levels. They were shengyuan(生员) or xiucai (秀才),juren (举人),and jinshi (进士)in order. To win the highest level jinshi was almost a guarantee of an official position, usually the magistrate of a county. The imperial exam system was initiated during the Sui dynasty (581-618) and abolished in 1905.
74 See Appendix 2
75 Literation (解放)refers to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949.
76 Zhou Mingxia (周明霞)was a well-known high school teacher in Quzhou. She was sister of Zhou Mingji(周明基1929-),a diplomat who had been in charge of Afican affair for many years.
77 According to my fieldwork experience, Quzhou people call both Buddhism gods and Daoism and popular religion deities Laofo(老佛)or Pusha (菩萨)These two terms are literally translated as Buddha.
78 See "No. 38, the Xiaying Street at the feet of the city wall" (城墙根的下营街三十八号)athttp://ranranju.blog.163.com/blog/static/51303222007268942185/.
79 The Dacheng Palace (Dacheng Dian) refers to the main hall of the Confucian Temple. At that time the Confucian Temple in Quzhou serves as the County School (Xian Xue).
80 For example, the West Lake Cultural Landscape in Hangzhou embodies a multitude of heritages and these heritages are interconnected, making the West Lake area a unique cultural landscape.
81 See Text of Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, Article 2-Definitions. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=enandpg=00006.
82 Actually Qu Yuan's Jiuge consists of eleven songs. The fifth one is entitled "The Great Siming" and the sixth is "The Junior Siming".
83 In the rite ofyouliao, animal oblation is placed on the firewood and burnt; the light from it is believed to reach to the sky.
84 The Chinese version of this quotation is "大宗伯之职……以槱燎祀司中、司命、风师、雨师”
85 Zitong(梓潼)and Wenchang used to be two deities, but during the Yuan dynasty, they united as one. Zitong was also a county name in Sichuan. The first temple of the Zitong deity was at the Qiqu Mountain in that county.
86 The state sacrifice system in imperial China usually had three levels:dasi (great sacrifice), zhongsi (middle sacrifice) and qunsi (common sacrifice).
87 Guansheng (the Saint Guan), also referred as Guangong (Sir Guan, or the Duke Guan), Guandi (the Emperor Guan) is worshipped as a deity of martial arts or the God of War in China. He was originally a renowned general of Shu (蜀)in the age of Three Kingdoms named Guan Yu (关羽162-220)For more, see Prasenjit, D. (1988). Superscribing symbols:The myth of Guandi, Chinese God of War, The Journal of Asian Studies,47(4):778-795.
88 Wen dance is one form of dances performed with the court music. It is used when the emperor offers sacrifice to the heaven and the earth and his ancestral. Eight-row wen dance is wen dance that has eight rows of dancers to perform it. According to the rites of the Zhou dynasty, only the emperor can have this kind of dance.
89 http://www.lantian.org.tw/top/03/1.htm
90 The punctuation is by Yang Bojun, See杨伯峻.《论语译注》,北京：中华书局,1983,p.139.
91 See, for example,陈绍灿(2010).莫名其妙的追捧——对西门庆“受捧现象”的文化思考,《中学政治教学参考》10, pp. 4-5. Ximen Qing(西门庆)was depicted in Chinese literature as a corrupt social climber, a lustful merchant, a murder and an unethical luster living in the Song dynasty. The guy was anything but a good person.
92 In pre-modern China, books and scholarship are generally divided into four parts: jing (classics), shi (historiography), zi (masters in different schools), and ji (collections of literary and miscellaneous works). The most important is jingxue (classic studies). Shi and zi are relatively less significant. Ji comes last.
Adams, J. (2013). The role of underwater archaeology in framing and facilitating the Chinese national strategic agenda, In T. Blumenfied and H. Silverman (eds.), Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New York: Springer, 261-282.
Alivizatou, M. (2011). Intangible heritage and erasure:Rethinking cultural preservation and contemporary museum practice, International Journal of Cultural Property 18(1): 37-60.
Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality, London: Routledge.
Ashworth, G. J. and P. J. Larkham (eds.) (1994). Building a New Heritage, London: Routledge.
Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2007) Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies, London: Pluto Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, M. Holquist (ed.), C. Emerson and M. Holquist (trans.), Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems ofDostoevsky's Poetics, C. Emerson (trans, and ed.), Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, V. W. McGee (trans.), C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds.), Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M./P. N. Medvedev (1978). The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: a Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics, Albert J. Wehrle (trans.), Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M./V. N. Volosinov (1986). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik (trans.), Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Balshaw, M. and L. Kennedy (eds.) (2000). Urban Space and Representation, Sterling, VA:Pluto Press.
Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew and R. Jones (eds.) (2008). Advances in Discourse Studies, London: Routledge.
Billig, M. (2000). Guest editorial: Towards a critique of the critical, Discourse & Society 11(3):291-292.
Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.) Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 35-46.
Billig, M. (2008a). The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominalization, Discourse & Society 19(6):783-800.
Billig, M. (2008b). Nominalizing and de-nominalizing: a reply, Discourse & Society 19(6):829-841.
Blommaert, J. (2001). Context is/as critique, Critique of Anthropology 21(1):13-32.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Blumenfield, T. and H. Silverman (eds.) (2013). Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New York: Springer.
Breglia, L. (2006). Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage, Austin: University of Texas Press.
Brett, D. (1996). The Construction of Heritage, Cork: Cork University Press.
Bruner, E. M. (1986). Ethnography as narrative. In V. Turner and E. M. Bruner (eds.) The Anthropology of Experience, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 139-155.
Burr, V. (2003). An Introduction to Social Constructionism (Second Edition), London: Routledge.
Butler, B. (2006). Heritage and the present past. In C. Tilley, S. Keuchler, and M. Rowlands (eds.), The Handbook of Material Culture, London: Sage, 463-479.
Butler, B. (2007). Return to Alexandria: An Ethnography of Cultural Heritage Revivalism and Museum Memory, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Byrne, D. (1991). Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management, History and Anthropology 5(2),269-276.
Byrne, D (2009). A critique of unfeeling heritage. In L. Smith and N. Akagawa (eds.) Intangible Heritage, New York: Routledge, 229-252.
Cameron, F. and S. Kenderdine (2007). Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage:A Critical Discourse, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carbaugh, D. (1988). Talking American:Cultural Discourses on Donhue, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating Selves: The Communication of Social Identities in American Scenes, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Carbaugh, D. (2005). Cultures in Conversation, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Carbaugh, D. and L. Rudnick (2006). Which Place, What Story?:Cultural Discourses at the Border of the Blackfeet Reservation and Glacier National Park, Great Plains Quarterly 26(3):167-184.
Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis:Communication practices and intercultural encounters, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36(3): 167-182.
Carbaugh, D., T. A. Gibson, and T. Milburn (1997). A view of communication and culture: Scenes in an ethnic cultural center and a private college. In B. Kovacic (ed), Emerging Theories of Human Communication, Albany: State University of New York Press,1-24.
Carbaugh, D., E. Molina-Markham, E. V. Nuciforo, and B. van Over (2011). Discursive reflexivity in the ethnography of communication: Cultural discourse analysis, Cultural Studies<-> Critical Methodologies 11(2):153-164.
Casey, E. (1993). Getting back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Casey, E. (1997). The Fate of Place, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chard, R. L. (2010). Perspectives on "Li" and "Ritual" in Western Sinology, World Sinology, (Autumn):29-37.
Chiapello, E. and N. Fairclough (2002). Understanding the new management ideology: a transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism, Discourse & Society 13(2):185-208.
Chilton, P., H. L. Tian and R. Wodak (2010). Reflections on discourse and critique in China and the West, Journal of Language and Politics 9(4): 489-507.
Clifford, J. (1983). On ethnographic authority, Representations 2 (spring):118-146.
Clifford, J. (2004). Looking several ways:anthropology and native heritage in Alaska, Current Anthropology 45(1):5-23.
Clifford, J. and G. E. Marcus (eds.) (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Coffin, C. (2006). History Discourse: The Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation, London: Continuum.
Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others, London: Routledge.
De Beaugrande, R. (2006). Critical discourse analysis: history, ideology, methodology, Studies in Language & Capitalism 1:29-56.
De Cesari, C. (2008). Cultural Heritage beyond the "State":Palestinian Heritage between Nationalism and Transnationalism, PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
De Cesari, C. (2010). World heritage and mosaic universalism:A view from Palestine, Journal of Social Archaeology 10(3):299-324.
De Jong, F and M. Rowlands (eds.) (2007). Reclaiming Heritage: Alternative Imaginaries of Memory in West Africa, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Second Edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1-29.
Dematte, P. (2012). After the flood: cultural heritage and cultural politics in Chongqing Municipality and the Three Gorges Areas, China, Future Anterior 9(1):48-64.
Dicks, B. (2000). Heritage, Place and Community, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Duara, P. (1988). Superscribing symbols:The myth of Guandi, Chinese god of war, The Journal of Asian Studies 47(4):778-795.
Duara, P. (1995). Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of History from Modern China, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography, Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press.
Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
English Heritage (2000). Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment, London:English Heritage. http//:www.english-heritage.org.uk/filestore/policy/ government/mori/finalreport/11.pdf, accessed on Nov.15,2012.
English Heritage (2005). Heritage Counts: The State of the Historic Environment, London:English Heritage, with the support of Farrer and Co., Cowley Manor,_NFU Mutual and C. Hoare and Co.
Englund, H., and J. Leach (2000). Ethnography and the meta-narratives of modernity, Current Anthropology 41(2): 225-248.
Evers, S., and C. Seagle (2012). Stealing the sacred: Why 'global heritage' discourse is perceived as a frontal attack on local heritage-making in Madagascar, Madagascar Conservation & Development 7(2S): 97-106.
Fabian, J. (1990). Presence and representation: The Other and anthropological writing, Critical Inquiry, 16(4): 753-772.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power, London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London:Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in transdisciplinary research. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53-70.
Fairclough, N. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: reply to Michael Billig, Discourse & Society 19(4): 811-819.
Feld, S. and K. Basso (eds.) (1996). Senses of Place, Santa Fe, NW: SAR Press.
Flaherty, M. G., N. K. Denzin, P. K. Manning, and D. Snow (2002). Review symposium: Crisis in representation, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 31 (4): 478-516.
Fleming, D. (2008). City of Rhetoric: Revitalizing the Public Sphere in Metropolitan America, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Flowerdew, J. (2012). Critical Discourse Analysis in Historiography: The Case of Hong Kong's Evolving Identity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fowler, P. (1992). The Past in Contemporary Society: Then, Now, London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, A. M. Sheridan (trans.), London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London:Allen Lane.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977, C. Gordon (ed.), New York: Pentheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader, New York: Pantheon,76-100.
Foucault, M. (1986). Of other spaces, Diacritics 16(1):22-27.
Foucault, M. (1989). The Order of Things: Archaeology of the Human Sciences, London: Routledge.
Gadamer, H-G (1975).Truth and Method, J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall (trans.), London:Sheed and Ward.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (Second Edition), New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2011). How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit, New York: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, New York: Basic Books.
Gosden, C. and Y. Marshall (1999). The cultural biography of objects, World Archaeology 31(2):169-178.
Grace, G. (1987). The Linguistic Construction of Reality, London: Croom Helm.
Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge:capital or culture?, Urban Studies 39:1003-1017.
Graham, B., G. Ashworth and J. Tunbridge, J. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy, London: Arnold.
Gumperz, J. and D. Hymes (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical justification. In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1994). Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hamill, S. and J. P. Seaton (trans. and eds.) (1999). The Essential Chuang Tzu, Boston: Shambha.
Hall, D. L. and R. T. Ames (1998). Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London: Sage in association with the Open University, 72-81.
Hall, S. (2005). Whose heritage? Un-settling the heritage, re-imaging the post-nation. In J. Littler and R. Naidoo (eds.) The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of 'Race', London: Routledge, 21-31.
Harrison, R. (ed.) (2010). Understanding the Politics of Heritage, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical Approaches, London:Routledge.
Harvey, D. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies, International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4): 319-338.
Heer, H., W. Manoschek, A. Pollak, and R. Wodak (eds.) (2008). The Discursive Construction of History: Remembering the Wehrmacht's War of Annihilation, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time, J. Stambaugh (trans.), Albany: State University of New York Press.
Heidegger, M. (2001a). The poet as thinker. In Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics,1-14.
Heidegger, M. (2001b). Building, dwelling, thinking. In Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics, 141-160.
Heidegger, M. (2001c). The thing. In Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics,161-184.
Hewison, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline, London: Methuen.
Hirsch, E. and M. O'Hanlon (eds.) (1995). The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ho, W. C. (2008). Writing experience: Does ethnography convey a crisis of representation, or an ontological break with the everyday world?, Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne De Sociologie 45(4):343-365.
Hobsbawm, E. J. and T. Ranger (eds.) (1983). The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hofstadter, A. (2001). Introduction. In M. Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter (trans.), New York: Perennial Classics, ix-xxii.
Hoskins, J. (1998). Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Story of People's Lives, London: Routledge.
Howard, P. (2003). Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity, London: Continuum.
Jorgensen, M. W. and L. Phillips (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, London: Sage.
Jullien, F. (2000). Detour and Access: Strategies of Meanings in China and Greece, S. Hawkes (trans.), New York: Zone Books.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64-91.
Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication, London: Arnold.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, T. Gora, A. Jardine and L. S. Roudiez (trans.), L. S. Roudiez (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in Poetic Language, M. Waller (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (ed.) The Kristeva Reader, New York: Columbia University Press, 34-61.
Lai, G. L., M. Demas and N. Agnew (2004). Valuing the past in China: the seminal influence of Liang Sicheng on heritage conservation, Orientations 35(2): 82-89.
Lao-Tse. (2006). The Tao Te Ching, J. Legge (trans.), Raleigh, NC: Hayes Barton Press.
Lazar, M. (2005). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Legge, J. (trans.) (1876). The She King, or, The Book of Ancient Poetry, London: Trubner.
Legge, J. (trans.) (1885). Li Ki, The Book of Rites. In The Sacred Books of the East (Vols. 27 and 28) Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Legge, J. (trans.) (1991). Confucius Analects. In The Chinese Classics, Taipei: SMC Publishing.
Littler, J., and R. Naidoo (eds.) (2005). The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of 'Race', London: Routledge.
Liu, H. M. and Z. J. Wu (2012). Exploring the Aura of Chinese Leisure Heritage-A Narrative Construction of Dongwushan Cultural Memory. In J. Dodd and V. Sharma (eds.) Leisure and Tourism:Cultural Paradigms, Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications, 213-230.
Lou, J. (2010). Chinatown transformed:Ideology, power, and resources in narrative place-making, Discourse Studies 12(5), 625-647.
Low, S. M. and D. Lawrence-Zuniga (eds.) (2003). The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowenthal, D. (1998). The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Second Edition), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Luning, S. (2007). Ritual territories as local heritage? Discourse on disruptions in society and nature in Maane, Burkina Faso, Africa 77(1):86-103.
Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics, and Performance, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Mancini-Lander, D. J. (2012). Memory on the Boundaries of Empire: Narrating Place in the Early Modern Local Historiography of Yazd, PhD dissertation, the University of Michigan.
Marcus, G. E. and D. Cushman (1982). Ethnographies as texts, Annual Review of Anthropology 11:25-69.
Marcus, G. E. and M. J. Fischer (1986). Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Martin, J. R. (2008). Incongruent and proud: de-vilifying 'nominalization', Discourse & Society 19(6): 801-810.
Martin, J. R. and R. Wodak (eds.) (2003). Re/Reading the Past: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of History, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
May, S. (2001). Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, London: Longman.
Morris, B. (2014). In defence of oblivion: the case of Dunwich, Suffolk, International Journal of Heritage Studies 20(2): 196-216.
Natzmer, C. (2002). Remembering and Forgetting: Creative Expression and Reconciliation in Post-Pinochet Chile. In J. Clima and M. Cattell (eds.), Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives, Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press,161-180.
Nietzsche, F. (1997). On the uses and disadvantages of history for life. In F. Nietzsche, Untimely Meditations, D. Breazeale (ed.), R. J. Hollingdale (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-123.
Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de memoire, Representations 26: 7-24.
Oakes, T. (2013). Heritage as improvement: Cultural display and contested governance in rural China, Modern China 39(4): 380-407.
Ochs, E. (1992) Indexing gender: language as an interactive phenomenon. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 335-358.
O'Donnell, D. (2010). Discursive ethics. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, and E. Wiebe (eds.) Encyclopedia of Case study Research (Vol. 1), London:Sage.
Potter, J. (2008). Discourse analysis. In L. Given (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, London: Sage, 218-221.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness, London:Pion.
Richardson, J., M. Krzyzanowski, D. Machin, and R. Wodak (eds.) (2013). Advances in Critical Discourse Studies, London: Routledge.
Rodenberg, J. and Hulst, R. (2012). Governance of heritage:Discourses and power in heritage policy networks. Proceedings of the Association of Critical Heritage Studies Inaugural Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 5-8.
Rumsey, A. (2004). Ethnographic macro-tropes and anthropological theory, Anthropological Theory 4(3):267-298.
Salemink, O. (2012). Appropriating culture: The politics of intangible cultural heritage in Vietnam. In Hue-Tam Ho Tai and Mark Sidel (eds.) State, Society and the Market in Contemporary Vietnam: Property, Power and Value. London: Routledge, 158-180.
Sangren, P. S. (1988). Rhetoric and the authority of ethnography: "Post-Modernism" and the social reproduction of texts, Current Anthropology 29(3):405-435.
Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schmidt, P. (forthcoming). Community Heritage in Africa: Preserving a Continent Village by Village, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Schmidt, P. and J. Walz (2007). Silences and mentions in history making, Journal of Historical Archaeology 41 (4):129-146.
Scollo, M. (2011). Cultural approaches to discourse analysis:A theoretical and methodological conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh's Cultural Discourse Theory, Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6(1):1-32.
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice, London:Routledge.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach, Oxford: Blackwell.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon (2003). Discourse in Place: Language in the Material World, London: Routledge.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet, New York: Routledge.
Shi-xu. (2005). A Cultural Approach to Discourse, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shi-xu. (2006). A multiculturalist approach to discourse theory, Semiotica 158(1/4): 383-400.
Shi-xu (2009a). Asian discourse studies: foundations and directions, Asian Journal of Communication 19(4): 384-97.
Shi-xu. (2009b). Reconstructing Eastern paradigms of discourse studies, Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4(1):29-48.
Shi-xu (2012). Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach to human discourses, Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies 26(4): 484-503.
Shi-xu (2014) Chinese Discourse Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Silverman, H. and T. Blumenfield. (2013). Cultural heritage politics in China: An introduction. In T. Blumenfied and H. Silverman (eds.) Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New York: Springer, 3-22.
Slingerland, E. (trans.) (2003). Confucius Analects: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianapolis Hackett Publishing Company.
Smart, G. (2008). Ethnographic-based discourse analysis: Uses, issues and prospects. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew and R. Jones (eds.) Advances in Discourse Studies, London: Routledge.
Smart, G. (2012). Discourse-oriented ethnography. In P. Gee and M. Handford (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, New York: Routledge.
Smith, L. (2004). Archeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage, London: Routledge.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge.
Smith, L. and N. Akagawa (eds.) (2009). Intangible Heritage, London:Routledge.
Smith, L., P, Shackel and G. Campbell (eds.) (2011). Heritage, Labour and the Working Class, London: Routledge.
Smithson, R. (1979). The Writings of Robert Smithson, N. Holt (ed.), New York: New York University Press.
Stahl, A. B. (2001). Making History in Banda: Anthropological Visions of Africa's Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steele J. (trans.) (1917). The I-li, Or, Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial, London: Probsthain & Co.
Stoddart, W. (2008). Remembering in a World of Forgetting: Thoughts on Tradition and Postmodernism, M. S. de Azevedo and A. V. Queiroz (eds.) Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.
Stone, P. G. and B. L. Molyneaux (eds.) (1994). The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education, London and New York:Routledge.
Su, X. and Teo, P. (2009). The Politics of Heritage Tourism in China: A View from Lijiang. London: Routledge.
Trouilllot, M-R.(1995). Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press.
Tu, C-I. (ed). (2000). Classics and Interpretation: the Hermeneutic Traditions in Chinese Culture. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers.
Tuan, Y. F. (1979). Landscape of Fear, New York: Pantheon Books.
Tuan, Y. F. (1991). Language and the making of place: A narrative-descriptive approach, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81(4): 684-696.
Tuan, Y. F. (2001). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tunbridge, J. (1984). Whose heritage to conserve? Cross-cultural reflections on political dominance and urban heritage, The Canadian Geographer/Le Geographe canadien 28(2):171-180.
Tunbridge, J. and Ashworth, G. (1996) Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict, Chichester: Wiley.
UNESCO (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Editor's Introduction: The Study of Discourse: An Introduction. In Tuen A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies (Vol. I), London: Sage, xix-xlii.
Walsh, K. (1992). The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-modern World, London: Routledge.
Wang, Y. E. (2003). Tope and Topos: the Leifeng Pagoda and the discourse of the demonic. In J. Zeitlin and L. Liu (eds.), Writing and Materiality in China, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 488-552.
Wang, J. (1996). High Culture Fever: Politics, Aesthetics, and Ideology in Deng's China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Waterton, E. (2007). Heritage as discourse: an institutionalised construction of the past in the UK. In D. Hull, S. Grabow and E. Waterton (eds.) Which Past, Whose Future? Treatments of the Past at the Start of the 21st Century. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 31-39.
Waterton, E. (2009). Sights of sites: picturing heritage, power and exclusion, Journal of Heritage Tourism 4(1):37-56.
Waterton, E. (2010a). Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain, Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Waterton, E. (2010b). Branding the past: The visual imagery of England's heritage. In E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds.) Culture, Heritage and Representations: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Waterton, E., L. Smith, and G. Campbell (2006). The utility of discourse analysis to heritage studies:the Burra Charter and social inclusion, International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4):339-355.
Waterton, E. and L. Smith (2009). There is no such thing as heritage. In E. Waterton and L. Smith (eds.), Taking Archaeology out of Heritage, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in 19th-century Europe, Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press.
White, H. (1987). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In The Content of the Form:Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-25.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse, London: Longman.
Wodak, R. (2006). History in the making/The making of history: The'German Wehrmacht'in the collective and individual memories in Austria, Journal of Language and Politics 5(1):125-154.
Wodak R. and R. De Cillia (2007). Commemorating the past: The discursive construction of official narratives about the'Rebirth of the Second Austrian Republic', Discourse & Communication 1(3):337-363.
Wodak, R., R. De Cillia, M. Reisigl and K. Liebhart (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity, A. Hirsch and R. Mitter (trans.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (eds.) (2009). Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (Second Edition), London:Sage.
Wu, Z. J. (2005). Teachers' Knowing in Curriculum Change:A Critical Discourse Study of Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wu, Z. J. (2010) Heritage and authenticity with Confucian discursive ethics: Reflecting on two ongoing heritage recovery projects in China, invited speech presented at the White Rose East Asia Centre, University of Leeds.
Wu, Z. J. (2013). Chinese mode of historical thinking and its transformation in pedagogical discourse. In T. Popkewitz (ed.) Rethinking the History of Education: Transnational Perspectives on Its Questions, Methods, and Knowledge, New York: Palgrave Macmillan,51-72.
Wu, Z. J. (2014)'Speak in the place of the sages':Rethinking the sources of pedagogic meanings, Journal of Curriculum Studies 43(3): 320-331.
Wu, Z. J. (forthcoming). Let fragments speak for themselves: vernacular heritage, emptiness and Confucian discourse of narrating the past, International Journal of Heritage Studies.
Wu, Z. J. and Q. X. Lv (2007). Discourse of Chinese medicine and Westernization. In Shi-xu (ed.), Discourse as Cultural Struggle, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,155-176.
Wu, Z. J, and C. Y. Han (2010). Cultural transformation of educational discourse in China: perspectives of multiculturalism/interculturalism. In C. A. Grant and A. Portera (eds.), Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Enhancing Global Interconnectedness, New York: Routledge, 225-244.
Wu, Z. J. and M. X. Hu (2010). Ritual hermeneutics as the source of meaning: Interpreting the fabric of Chinese culture. China Media Research 6(2):104-113.
Xie, J. Y. (2010). The Discursive Formation of Chinese Architectural Heritage, MA thesis, Zhejiang University.
Yim, L. C. H. (2009). The Poet-Historian Qian Qianyi, London: Routledge.
Zhang, H. Y., P. Chilton, Y. D. He and W. Jing (2011). Critique across cultures:Some questions for CDA, Critical Discourse Studies 8(2):95-107.
仓修良.(1990).《方志学通论》,济南：齐鲁书社.
(清)陈鹏年修,徐之凯等纂.《西安县志》,清康熙三十八年刻本.
陈绍灿.(2010).莫名其妙的追捧——对西门庆“受捧现象”的文化思考,《中学政治教学参考》,(10)：4-5.
(清)程庭鹭.(1999).序,载(清)姚承绪.《吴越访古录》,姜小青校点,南京：江苏古籍出版社.
丁建新.(2010).作为社会符号的“反语言”,《外语学刊》,(2)：76-83.
丁建新、沈文静(主编).(2013a).《边缘话语分析》,天津：南开大学出版社.
丁建新、沈文静.(2013b).边缘话语分析：一些基本的理论问题,《外语与外语教学》,(4)：17-21.
杜维运.(1981).西方史学输入中国考,载《与西方史家论中国史学》,台北：东大图书有限公司。
(唐)房玄龄等.(1974).《晋书》(第七册),北京：中华书局.
龚坚.(2013).《喧嚣的新村：遗产运动与村落政治》,北京：北京大学出版社.
辜正坤.(2007).中国外语学术自主创新：学术研究理路和前途展望——从单向殖文主义到双向互动的比较文化转向.《中国外语》,(1)：21-27.
过常宝.(2006).论《史记》的“太史公曰”和“互见法”,《唐都学刊》,(5)：1-7.
(清)郝玉麟等监修,鲁曾煜等编纂.《广东通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
胡宝珍.(2006).“互见法”探源,《河北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(4)：103-108.
黄进兴.(1997).中国近代史学的双重危机：试论“新史学”的诞生及其所面临的困境,《中国文化研究所学报》,(6)：263-285.
(清)江永.《仪礼释宫增注》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
(清)嵇曾筠监修,沈翼机编纂.《浙江通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书.
李春霞.(2013).由名胜古迹谈遗产的中国范式：以“天地之中”为例,《贵州社会科学》,(4)：16-21.
李春霞、彭兆荣.(2008).无形文化遗产遭遇的三种“政治”,《民族艺术》,(3)：7-18.
李剑国.(2007).《新辑搜神记》,北京：中华书局.
李军.(2005).什么是文化遗产?——对一个当代观念的知识考古,《文艺研究》,(4)：123-131.
李立.(2010).《在学者与村民之间的文化遗产——村落知识生产的经验研究、话语分析与反思》,北京：人民出版社.
(清)李颙.(1996).《二曲集》,陈俊民点校,北京：中华书局.
(明)林应祥修,叶秉敬等纂.(2009).天启衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,351-610.
刘畅.(2002).述而不作：作为一种思维方式,《天津社会科学》,(6)：116-121.
刘婉华.(2003).中国古代建筑的礼乐文化意蕴,《南方论坛》,(2)：28-33.
(唐)刘知几撰,(清)浦起龙释.(1978).《史通通释》(上),上海：上海古籍出版社.
陆敏珍.(2012).宋代地方志编纂中的“地方”书写,《史学理论研究》,(2)：59-69.
鲁迅.(1973).伪自由书,载鲁迅先生纪念委员会编.《鲁迅全集》,北京：人民文学出版社.
(汉)毛亨传,(汉)郑玄笺,(唐)孔颖达疏.(2009).《毛诗正义》(十三经注疏,标点本),北京：北京大学出版社.
彭兆荣.(2008a).《遗产：反思与阐释》,昆明：云南教育出版社.
彭兆荣.(2008b).遗产学与遗产运动：表述与制造,《文艺研究》,(2)：84-91.
彭兆荣.(2013).我国非物质文化遗产理论体系探索,《贵州社会科学》,(4)：4-8.
彭兆荣、李春霞.(2013).我国文化遗产体系的生成养育制度,《厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2)：1-11.
(明)沈杰修,吾冔等纂.(2009).弘治衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,1-128.
(清)盛世佐.《仪礼集编》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
(汉)司马迁.(1959).《史记》,北京：中华书局.
(汉)司马迁.(2002).报任安书,载(清)吴楚材、吴调侯编,《古文观止》(上册),北京：中国文史出版社.
阮仪三.(2000).《历史环境保护的理论与实践》,上海：上海科学技术出版社.
史密斯、侯松、谢洁怡.(2014).学术与重构：遗产、博物馆再审视一一劳拉简·史密斯教授专访,《东南文化》,(2)：11-16.
施旭.(2010).《文化话语研究：探索中国的理论、方法与问题》,北京：北京大学出版社.
(宋)苏洵著,曾枣(?)、金成礼笺注.(1993).《嘉佑集笺注》,上海：上海古籍出版社.
田海龙.(2007).实践结点研究的批评视角,《外语与外语教学》,(3)：1-4.
田凯.(2012).清代成都官署的建设,《西南交通大学学报(社会科学版)》,(5)：103-109.
(清)田文镜、王士俊等监修,孙灏、顾栋高等编纂.《河南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
王宁.(2013).中国文化走出去：外语学科大有作为,《中国外语》,(2)：11-12.
王运良.(2009).《中国文物保护单位制度研究》,复旦大学博士学位论文.
魏爱棠、彭兆荣.(2011).遗产运动中的政治与认同,《厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(5)：1-8.
吴宗杰.(2006).中西话语权势关系的语言哲学探源：话语学的文化研究视角,《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(2)：170-177.
吴宗杰.(2008).历史学的解构与重构：泛化“封建”的话语分析.《武汉大学学报(人文科学版)》,(5)：522-527.
吴宗杰.(2009).跨文化视角下的“中国学研究”,“当代浙学论坛：浙江省外文学会2009年会”主旨发言,浙江宁波.
吴宗杰.(2012a).重建坊巷文化肌理：衢州水亭门街区文化遗产研究,《文化艺术研究》,(3)：19-27.
吴宗杰.(2012b).话语与文化遗产的本土意义重建,《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(5)：28-40.
吴宗杰、胡美馨(2010).超越表征：中国话语的诠释传统及其当下观照,《文史哲》(4)：5-13.
吴宗杰、侯松.(2012).批评话语研究的超学科与跨文化转向——以文化遗产的中国话语重构为例.《广东外语外贸大学学报》,(6)：12-16.
吴宗杰、姜克银.(2009).中国文化人类学研究的话语转向.《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(5)：83-93.
吴宗杰、余华(2011).《史记》叙事范式与民族志书写的本土化,《广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(1)：70-77.
吴宗杰、等(2012).《衢州水亭门街区文化遗产研究报告》,未出版稿.
吴宗杰、余华.(2013).民族志与批评话语分析,《外语与外语教学》,(4)：11-16.
向燕南.(2013).史学的求善诉求与传统史学之道德批判的省思,《人文杂志》,(12)：75-81.
(汉)许慎撰,(清)段玉裁注.(1981).《说文解字注》,上海：上海古籍出版社.
(明)徐师曾.(1998).《文体明辩序说》,罗根谭校点,北京：人民文学出版社.
杨伯峻.(1980).《论语译注》,北京：中华书局.
杨军昌.(1999).《中国方志学概论》,贵阳：贵州人民出版社.
杨满仁.(2011).“比兴”辨略,《文艺评论》,(4)：13-17.
(清)杨廷望等纂修.(2009).康熙衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,611-1080.
(明)杨准修,赵镗等纂.(2009).嘉靖衢州府志.衢州市地方志办公室编,韩章训标点,《衢州府志集成》,杭州：西泠印社出版社,129-350.
(清)姚承绪.(1999).《吴越访古录》,姜小青校点,南京：江苏古籍出版社.
(清)姚宝煌修,范崇楷等纂.(1970).《西安县志》,台北：成文出版社有限公司.
喻学才.(2007).中国古代遗产保护的七大特征,《旅游学研究》,(00)：231-234.
喻学才.(2008).中国古代遗产保护实践述略,《华中建筑》,(3)：1-6.
喻学才.(2012).中国遗产保护传统制度研究,《东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(1)：117-122.
张革非.(1992).《中国方志学纲要》,重庆：西南师范大学出版社.
张世君.(2011).礼经建筑空间的政治叙事,《江西社会科学》,(1)：37-47.
(清)张廷玉等.(1974).《明史》(第二十四册),北京：中华书局.
(清)章学诚.(1985a).《章学诚遗书》,北京：文物出版社.
(清)章学诚著作,叶瑛校注.(1985b).《文史通义校注》,北京：中华书局.
(清)张玉书等编纂.(2002).《康熙字典》(标点整理本),上海：汉语大词典出版社.
(民国)赵尔巽等.(1976).《清史稿》,北京：中华书局.
(清)赵弘恩监修,黄之隽编纂.《江南通志》,文渊阁钦定四库全书本.
赵心田.(1995).新方志注释论,《中国地方志》,(1)：63-67.
赵旭东.(2009).龙牌与中华民族认同的乡村建构,《广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2)：18-24.
(汉)郑玄注,孔安国正义(2000).《礼记正义》,《十三经注疏》整理委员会整理.北京：北京大学出版社.
(民国)郑永禧.(1984).《衢县志》,台北：成文出版社有限公司.
(宋)朱熹.(1983).《四书章句集注》,北京：中华书局.
朱煜杰.(2011).中西遗产保护比较的几点思考：一个跨文化的视角,《东南文化》,(3)：118-122.