修辞互动视角下的语篇类型共生关系研究
|
摘要
分类是人类的内在需求，语篇分类也不例外。从早期亚里士多德的《诗学》和《修辞学》著作以及自19世纪有英语写作教材以来，语篇类型一直都是修辞学和修辞—写作学(rhetoric-composition)探讨的重要话题之一。除此之外，另有多门学科也对语篇类型进行过相关的研究，如翻译学、语篇语言学、语料库语言学、功能语言学、专门用途英语等。这些学科在语篇分类方面取得的成果在一定程度上丰富了修辞—写作学对语篇分类的研究。但是，针对语篇类型共生关系研究的成果还很少，尽管语篇类型共生是一个不争的事实。鉴于此，本研究在对语篇类型已有研究成果分析的基础上，从修辞互动的视角就语篇类型共生关系进行了探讨与剖析，并进一步探讨了这一研究对我国英语写作教学的理论和现实意义。
本研究针对语篇和语篇类型进行了界定，认为语篇本身具有宏观语义；语篇是修辞互动的产物；语篇是修辞情境下的语篇；是自然发生的言语修辞行为。语篇类型作为语篇分类的范畴，有广义和狭义之分。本文主要在已有语篇类型范畴——语篇体裁(genres)和语篇模式(modes of discourse)——的基础上，提出了主题语篇策略(strategies of thesis text)范畴，并从广义上探讨了语篇类型的这三项次范畴之间在修辞互动中的共生关系。
通过史学研究(historiography)和共时研究，以修辞学著作和英语写作教材为基础，本研究分阶段逐一分析了语篇类型从早期的语篇体裁，到十九世纪中叶至二十世纪初期的语篇模式，再到二十世纪上半叶至20世纪70年代的主题语篇策略，最后发展到二十世纪末至今的语篇类型共生，在修辞—写作学发展演变过程中的起因以及它们各自存在的优势与不足，阐释了语篇类型在修辞互动中存在共生关系的缘由及其现状。
语篇的构建是在满足修辞情景前提下建立起来的，语篇的理解是基于修辞情景下的解读，无论语篇生成或理解都是一项修辞活动，脱离修辞情景的语篇不称其为语篇。基于这种理念，本研究结合古典修辞学中的凯洛斯(kairos)理论、Bitzer的修辞情境论和Burke的修辞情境论，阐述了语篇类型与修辞情境的辩证关系：语篇类型是对反复出现的修辞情境所作出的反应；语篇类型对于构筑修辞情境具有能动的反作用。在这一理论框架基础上，本研究进一步探讨了语篇类型与修辞互动的关系，对比分析了Richards的隐喻互动论、Bakhtin的对话理论、Burke的同一理论以及Habermas的交往行为理论，重点阐述了修辞互动与语篇类型的共生关系。
任何一种分类都有其存在的理论基础，语篇体裁、语篇模式和主题语篇策略范畴也有它们各自分类的理论基础。本研究通过考证发现，语篇体裁的划分是以文化要素为基础的，具有社会性、历史性、动态性及可习得性；种类繁杂，并且具体，是开放性的体系。语篇模式的划分是以语法、词汇、句法、语态、时体等语言特征为基础的，具有一定的抽象性，且比较封闭。主题语篇策略的划分基础是人类共有的思维形式，如分类、划分、定义、比较、因果、过程等，也相对比较封闭。在此基础上，本研究根据文化、语言和思维三者之间存在的不可分关系，运用类比推理，论证了语篇体裁、语篇模式和主题语篇策略三者在修辞互动中存在的共生关系。
本研究对于我国英语写作教学具有重要的理论和现实指导意义。首先，它为我国英语写作教学提供了一个新的理论视角，解释了语篇类型知识在英语写作教学中的重要性及其如何讲授，这将更有利于学生英语写作能力的培养。第二，由于本研究是基于英语写作教材的研究，而英语写作教材研究在我国还很薄弱，因此，对英美英语写作教材中语篇类型共生关系的研究对我国英语写作教材编写具有重要参考价值。第三，本研究是建立在修辞学基础上的研究，以修辞情境理论为指导，在修辞互动理念关照下进行的研究。而用修辞学方法教写作能使写作变得更加贴近现实、更有趣、更注重语篇整体，所以，本研究对于提高我国英语写作教学效果具有重要的现实指导意义。
The tendency to categorize is innate in man and the same is true for discourseclassification. Studies of discourse types, an essential topic of rhetoric andrhetoric-composition, can be traced back to Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric as well asthe composition textbooks of the19thcentury. Many other disciplines, such astranslatology, text linguistics, corpus linguistics, functional linguistics and ESP (Englishfor Special Purpose), have also contributed to the studies of discourse types, thusenriching rhetoric-composition. However, few studies have been made on the symbiosisof discourse types even though this symbiosis is a plain fact. This dissertation, based onthe analysis of existing studies, approaches the symbiosis of discourse types from theperspective of rhetorical reciprocity. It then discusses the theoretical and practicalsignificance of this study for the teaching of English writing in China.
First and foremost, the dissertation defines “discourse” and “discourse types.” Adiscourse has a macrostructure and is the product of rhetorical interaction; a discourse isa discourse only in the rhetorical situation; it is a natural, rather than man-made,rhetorical speech act. The term “discourse type” or “text type” as a category ofdiscourse takes both broad and narrow senses in the actual use. In addition to the twoexisting categories of “genres” and “modes of discourse,” the dissertation puts forwarda new category,“strategies of thesis text.” Then, it explores the symbiosis of these threesub-categories in a broad sense from the perspective of rhetorical reciprocity.
Types of discourse has evolved from the early genres to the modes of discoursedominating the19thcentury and early20thcentury, up to the strategies of thesis textranging from the1950s to1970s, and have come to be symbiotic today. By means ofhistoriographical and synchronic studies, this dissertation has analyzed the origin,merits and demerits of each discourse type category through investigation of published classical rhetorical treaties and modern composition textbooks. Based on all of this, ithas explored the reasons for and the current situation of the symbiosis of discoursetypes (i.e. genres, modes of discourse, and strategies of thesis text) in rhetoricalreciprocity.
A text is composed on the condition that it satisfies a certain rhetorical situationand is decoded in a rhetorical situation, too. Either the production or comprehension ofa text is a rhetorical act. A text is a text only in the rhetorical situation. Based on thisassumption, this dissertation has expounded on the dialectical relationship betweendiscourse types and rhetorical situation by referring to kairos in classical rhetoric,Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation as well as Burke’s. Discourse types are regarded asreoccurring responses to rhetorical situations, and play a dynamic role in theconstruction of a rhetorical situation. Within this theoretical framework, the dissertationhas explored the key elements of rhetorical interaction: Richards’ MetaphoricalInteraction, Bakhtin’s Dialogue Theory, Burke’s Identification and Habermas’Communicative Action. Then it has elaborated the relationship between rhetoricalreciprocity and the symbiosis of discourse types.
Classification is theory-based. Genres, modes of discourse and strategies of thesistext are no exception. This study shows that the classification of genres is based oncultural elements and that genres are social, historical, dynamic and acquirable.Additionally, the classification of genres is complicated, specific, and open. Theclassification of modes of discourse is founded on linguistic features such as grammar,lexicons, syntax, voices, tenses, aspects, etc. Modes of discourse are abstract and closed.The basis for the division of strategies of thesis text is universal thinking such asclassification, definition, comparison, contrast, cause and effect, process, etc. They arealso closed to a certain degree. Taking all this into account and using analogy, thedissertation, acknowledging that culture, language and thinking are inseparable,demonstrates the symbiosis of discourse types in rhetorical reciprocity.
This study is of great theoretical and practical significance to the teaching ofEnglish writing in China. Firstly, it provides a new theoretical perspective for teaching English writing in China and explains the key role of the knowledge of discourse typesin English writing. It provides a practical model of how to teach discourse types inEnglish writing, which ultimately will enhance students’ ability to write. Secondly, thisstudy is of great value for the compilation of composition textbooks in China. As iswidely known, the study of composition textbooks in China needs to be improved. Thisdissertation meets this need in a sense. Based on the study of composition textbooks, ithas explored the symbiotic relationship of discourse types in American and Britishcomposition textbooks which has provided valuable reference for the compilation ofEnglish composition textbooks in China. Thirdly, this study is rhetoric-oriented,conducted with the theory of rhetoric and rhetorical interaction. To teach Englishwriting rhetorically can make it more approximate to real life and the whole discourse,thus making it more interesting. Therefore, this study is instructive for the improvementof the teaching of English writing in China.
本研究针对语篇和语篇类型进行了界定，认为语篇本身具有宏观语义；语篇是修辞互动的产物；语篇是修辞情境下的语篇；是自然发生的言语修辞行为。语篇类型作为语篇分类的范畴，有广义和狭义之分。本文主要在已有语篇类型范畴——语篇体裁(genres)和语篇模式(modes of discourse)——的基础上，提出了主题语篇策略(strategies of thesis text)范畴，并从广义上探讨了语篇类型的这三项次范畴之间在修辞互动中的共生关系。
通过史学研究(historiography)和共时研究，以修辞学著作和英语写作教材为基础，本研究分阶段逐一分析了语篇类型从早期的语篇体裁，到十九世纪中叶至二十世纪初期的语篇模式，再到二十世纪上半叶至20世纪70年代的主题语篇策略，最后发展到二十世纪末至今的语篇类型共生，在修辞—写作学发展演变过程中的起因以及它们各自存在的优势与不足，阐释了语篇类型在修辞互动中存在共生关系的缘由及其现状。
语篇的构建是在满足修辞情景前提下建立起来的，语篇的理解是基于修辞情景下的解读，无论语篇生成或理解都是一项修辞活动，脱离修辞情景的语篇不称其为语篇。基于这种理念，本研究结合古典修辞学中的凯洛斯(kairos)理论、Bitzer的修辞情境论和Burke的修辞情境论，阐述了语篇类型与修辞情境的辩证关系：语篇类型是对反复出现的修辞情境所作出的反应；语篇类型对于构筑修辞情境具有能动的反作用。在这一理论框架基础上，本研究进一步探讨了语篇类型与修辞互动的关系，对比分析了Richards的隐喻互动论、Bakhtin的对话理论、Burke的同一理论以及Habermas的交往行为理论，重点阐述了修辞互动与语篇类型的共生关系。
任何一种分类都有其存在的理论基础，语篇体裁、语篇模式和主题语篇策略范畴也有它们各自分类的理论基础。本研究通过考证发现，语篇体裁的划分是以文化要素为基础的，具有社会性、历史性、动态性及可习得性；种类繁杂，并且具体，是开放性的体系。语篇模式的划分是以语法、词汇、句法、语态、时体等语言特征为基础的，具有一定的抽象性，且比较封闭。主题语篇策略的划分基础是人类共有的思维形式，如分类、划分、定义、比较、因果、过程等，也相对比较封闭。在此基础上，本研究根据文化、语言和思维三者之间存在的不可分关系，运用类比推理，论证了语篇体裁、语篇模式和主题语篇策略三者在修辞互动中存在的共生关系。
本研究对于我国英语写作教学具有重要的理论和现实指导意义。首先，它为我国英语写作教学提供了一个新的理论视角，解释了语篇类型知识在英语写作教学中的重要性及其如何讲授，这将更有利于学生英语写作能力的培养。第二，由于本研究是基于英语写作教材的研究，而英语写作教材研究在我国还很薄弱，因此，对英美英语写作教材中语篇类型共生关系的研究对我国英语写作教材编写具有重要参考价值。第三，本研究是建立在修辞学基础上的研究，以修辞情境理论为指导，在修辞互动理念关照下进行的研究。而用修辞学方法教写作能使写作变得更加贴近现实、更有趣、更注重语篇整体，所以，本研究对于提高我国英语写作教学效果具有重要的现实指导意义。
The tendency to categorize is innate in man and the same is true for discourseclassification. Studies of discourse types, an essential topic of rhetoric andrhetoric-composition, can be traced back to Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric as well asthe composition textbooks of the19thcentury. Many other disciplines, such astranslatology, text linguistics, corpus linguistics, functional linguistics and ESP (Englishfor Special Purpose), have also contributed to the studies of discourse types, thusenriching rhetoric-composition. However, few studies have been made on the symbiosisof discourse types even though this symbiosis is a plain fact. This dissertation, based onthe analysis of existing studies, approaches the symbiosis of discourse types from theperspective of rhetorical reciprocity. It then discusses the theoretical and practicalsignificance of this study for the teaching of English writing in China.
First and foremost, the dissertation defines “discourse” and “discourse types.” Adiscourse has a macrostructure and is the product of rhetorical interaction; a discourse isa discourse only in the rhetorical situation; it is a natural, rather than man-made,rhetorical speech act. The term “discourse type” or “text type” as a category ofdiscourse takes both broad and narrow senses in the actual use. In addition to the twoexisting categories of “genres” and “modes of discourse,” the dissertation puts forwarda new category,“strategies of thesis text.” Then, it explores the symbiosis of these threesub-categories in a broad sense from the perspective of rhetorical reciprocity.
Types of discourse has evolved from the early genres to the modes of discoursedominating the19thcentury and early20thcentury, up to the strategies of thesis textranging from the1950s to1970s, and have come to be symbiotic today. By means ofhistoriographical and synchronic studies, this dissertation has analyzed the origin,merits and demerits of each discourse type category through investigation of published classical rhetorical treaties and modern composition textbooks. Based on all of this, ithas explored the reasons for and the current situation of the symbiosis of discoursetypes (i.e. genres, modes of discourse, and strategies of thesis text) in rhetoricalreciprocity.
A text is composed on the condition that it satisfies a certain rhetorical situationand is decoded in a rhetorical situation, too. Either the production or comprehension ofa text is a rhetorical act. A text is a text only in the rhetorical situation. Based on thisassumption, this dissertation has expounded on the dialectical relationship betweendiscourse types and rhetorical situation by referring to kairos in classical rhetoric,Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation as well as Burke’s. Discourse types are regarded asreoccurring responses to rhetorical situations, and play a dynamic role in theconstruction of a rhetorical situation. Within this theoretical framework, the dissertationhas explored the key elements of rhetorical interaction: Richards’ MetaphoricalInteraction, Bakhtin’s Dialogue Theory, Burke’s Identification and Habermas’Communicative Action. Then it has elaborated the relationship between rhetoricalreciprocity and the symbiosis of discourse types.
Classification is theory-based. Genres, modes of discourse and strategies of thesistext are no exception. This study shows that the classification of genres is based oncultural elements and that genres are social, historical, dynamic and acquirable.Additionally, the classification of genres is complicated, specific, and open. Theclassification of modes of discourse is founded on linguistic features such as grammar,lexicons, syntax, voices, tenses, aspects, etc. Modes of discourse are abstract and closed.The basis for the division of strategies of thesis text is universal thinking such asclassification, definition, comparison, contrast, cause and effect, process, etc. They arealso closed to a certain degree. Taking all this into account and using analogy, thedissertation, acknowledging that culture, language and thinking are inseparable,demonstrates the symbiosis of discourse types in rhetorical reciprocity.
This study is of great theoretical and practical significance to the teaching ofEnglish writing in China. Firstly, it provides a new theoretical perspective for teaching English writing in China and explains the key role of the knowledge of discourse typesin English writing. It provides a practical model of how to teach discourse types inEnglish writing, which ultimately will enhance students’ ability to write. Secondly, thisstudy is of great value for the compilation of composition textbooks in China. As iswidely known, the study of composition textbooks in China needs to be improved. Thisdissertation meets this need in a sense. Based on the study of composition textbooks, ithas explored the symbiotic relationship of discourse types in American and Britishcomposition textbooks which has provided valuable reference for the compilation ofEnglish composition textbooks in China. Thirdly, this study is rhetoric-oriented,conducted with the theory of rhetoric and rhetorical interaction. To teach Englishwriting rhetorically can make it more approximate to real life and the whole discourse,thus making it more interesting. Therefore, this study is instructive for the improvementof the teaching of English writing in China.
引文
①关于语篇宏观结构的论述，可参见刘新芳，“论语篇宏观结构的功能，”《重庆交通大学学报》，2011年第4期；刘新芳，“语篇宏观结构及其体现形式，”《牡丹江大学学报》，2011年第9期。
①参见Sharon Crowley（1998）的“Around1971: The Emergence of Process Pedagogy”一文。
②见周耀东.西方修辞与中国的外语教育——刘亚猛教授访谈[J].外国语言文学,2004,(1):1-5.
Allen, Graham. Intertextuality [M]. London: Routledge,2000.
Anson, Chris M. Text Analysis [A]. Mary Lynch Kennedy (ed.). TheorizingComposition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and Scholarship in ContemporaryComposition Studies [Z]. Westport: Greenwood Press,1998.323-331.
Aristotle. Rhetoric [M]. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: Random House,1954.
Atwill, J. M. Contingencies of Historical Representation [A]. Vitanza, V.J.(ed.). WritingHistories of Rhetoric [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1994.98-111.
Axelrod, Rise B.&Cooper, Charles R. The St. Martin’s Guide to Writing [M].9thed.Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,2010.
Badger, R.&White, G. A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing [J]. ELT Journal,2000,54(2):153-60.
Bain, Alexander. English Composition and Rhetoric: A Manual [M]. New York: D.Appleton and Company,1867.
Barbara, Johnstone. Discourse Analysis [M].2nded. Malden: Blackwell Publishing,2008.
Bawarshi, Anis S.&Reiff, Mary Jo. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory,Research, and Pedagogy [M]. West Lafayette: Parlor Press,2010.
Bawarshi, Anis. The Genre Function [J]. College English,2000,62(3):335-360.
Bazerman, Charles. The Life of Genre, the Life in the Classroom [A]. W. Bishop&H.Ostrom (eds.). Genre and Writing: Issues, Arguments, Alternatives [C]. Portsmouth,NH: Boynton/Cook,1997.19-26.
Beaugrande, Robert de&Dressler, Wolfgang. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M].London: Longman,1981.
Beaugrande, Robert de. Text Production: Toward a Science of Composition [M].Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation,1984.
Beekman, John&Callow, John&Kopesec, Michael. The Semantic Structure of WrittenCommunication [M].5thed. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics,1981.
Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. New York:Longman,1991.
Berkenkotter, Carol&Huckin, Thomas N. Genre Knowledge in DisciplinaryCommunication: Cognition, Culture, Power [M]. Hillsdale: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,1995.
Berlin, James A. Poststructuralism, Cultural Studies, and the Composition Classroom:Postmodern Theory in Practice [J]. Rhetoric Review,1992,11(1):16-33.
Berlin, James A. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges,1900-1985[M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1987.
Berlin, James A. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges [M].Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1984.
Berlin, James. Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories [J].College English,1982,44(8):765-777.
Biber, Douglas&Finegan, Edward. An Initial Typology of English Text Types [A]. JanAarts&William Meijs (eds.). Corpus Linguistics II [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,1986.19-46.
Biber, Douglas. A Typology of English Texts [J]. Linguistics,1989(27):3-43.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. The Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1968,1(1):1-14.
Bj rk, Lennart. Text Types, Textual Consciousness and Academic Writing Ability [A]. L.Bj rk, G. Br uer, L. Rienecker&P. Stray J rgensen (eds.). Teaching AcademicWriting in European Higher Education [C]. Kluwer Academic Publishers,2003.29-40.
Blommaert, Jan. Discourse: A Critical Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2005.
Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication [M].Malden: Blackwell Publishing,2004.
Boswell, Grant. The Disfunction of Rhetoric: Invention, Imaginative Excess, and theOrigin of the Modes of Discourse [J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,1988,18(3/4):237-250.
Bramer, George R. Right Rhetoric: Classical Roots for Contemporary Aims in Writing[A]. Jean Dietz Moss (ed.). Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of ClassicalRhetoric to Practical Reasoning [C]. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University ofAmerica Press,1986.135-155.
Britton, James et al. The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18)[M]. Hong Kong:Macmillan Education,1975.
Brown, Gillian&Yule, George. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1983.
Bühler, K. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language [M]. Trans.by D.E. Goodwin. Amsterdam: Benjamins,1990.
Bullock, Richard H.&Goggin, Maureen Daly, Weinberg, Francine. The Norton FieldGuide to Writing, with Readings and Handbook [M].2nded. New York: W. W.Norton,2010.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1969.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1969.
Burke, Kenneth. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. Lee Thayer (ed.). Communication:Ethical and Moral Issues [C]. New York: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers,1973.263-275.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [Z]. trans. anded. by Gregory P. Trauth&Kerstin Kazzazi. Beijing: Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,2000.
Caenepeel, Mimo. Aspect and Text Structure [J]. Linguistics,1995,(33):213-253.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776)[M]. Cambridge:Chadwyck-Healey,1999.
Carr, Jean Ferguson, Carr, Stephen L., Schultz, Lucille M. Archives of Instruction:Nineteenth-Century Rhetorics, Readers, and Composition Books in the UnitedStates [M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2005.
Chen, Yaping. A Study in Generic Intertextuality [D]. Shanghai: Shanghai InternationalStudies University,2008.
Clark, Irene L. Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching ofWriting [Z].2nded. New York: Routledge,2012.
Clark, Irene L. Genre [A]. Irene Clark L. et al.(eds.). Concepts in Composition: Theoryand Practice in Teaching of Writing [Z].2nded. New York: Routledge,2012.
Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-LanguageWriting [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Connors, Robert J. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy [M].Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1997.
Connors, Robert J. The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse [J]. CollegeComposition and Communication,1981,32(4):444-455.
Corbett, Edward P.J.&Connors, Robert J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student[M].4thed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999.
Crowley, Sharon&Hawhee, Debra. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students [M].4thed. New York: Pearson Education,2009.
Crowley, Sharon&Stancliff, Michael. Critical Situations: A Rhetoric for Writing inCommunities [M]. New York: Longman,2008.
Crowley, Sharon. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays [M].Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1998.
Crowley, Sharon. The Methodical Memory: Invention in Current-Traditional Rhetoric[M]. Carbondale&Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press,1990.
D’Angelo, Frank J. A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric [M]. Cambridge: WinthropPublishers,1975.
D’Angelo, Frank J. Imitation and Style [J]. College Composition and Communication,1973,24(3):283-290.
D’Angelo, Frank. Nineteenth-Century Forms/Modes of Discourse: A Critical Inquiry [J].College Composition and Communication,1984,35(1):31-42.
Dean, Deborah. Genre Theory: Teaching, Writing, and Being [M]. Urbana: The NationalCouncil of Teachers of English,2008.
Devitt, Amy J. Generalizing about Genre: New Conceptions of an Old Concept [J].College Composition and Communication,1993,44(4):573-586.
Devitt, Amy J. Writing Genres [M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2004.
Devitt, Amy, Reiff, Mary Jo&Bawarshi, Anis. Scenes of Writing: Strategies forComposing with Genres [M]. New York: Longman,2004.
Diakidoy, Irene-Anna N., Stylianou, Polyxeni, Karefillidou, Christina&Papageorgiou,Panayiota. The Relationship Between Listening and Reading Comprehension ofDifferent Types of Text at Increasing Grade Levels [J]. Reading Psychology,2005(26):55-80.
Donovan, Timothy R.&McClelland, Ben W. Eight Approaches to TeachingComposition [C]. Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers of English,1980.
Dooley, Robert A.&Levinsohn, Stephen H. Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of BasicConcepts [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2008.
Duff, David. Modern Genre Theory [C]. Harlow: Longman,2000.
Enkvist, Nils Erik. Contrastive Linguistics and Text Linguistics [A]. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.).Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter&Co.,1984.
Enos, Richard Leo. Rhetorical Archaeology: Established Resources, MethodologicalTools, and Basic Research Methods [A]. Andrea A. Lunsford, Kirt H. Wilson, RosaA. Eberly (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies [C]. Los Angeles:SAGE,2009.35-52.
Enos, Theresa. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication fromAncient Times to the Information Age [Z]. New York: Garland Publishing,1996.
Esser, Jürgen. Introduction to English Text-Linguistics [M]. Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang,2009.
Faigley, Lester&Hansen, Kristine. Learning to Write in the Social Sciences [J].College Composition and Communication,1985,36(2):140-149.
Faigley, Lester&Meyer, Paul. Rhetorical Theory and Readers’ Classifications of TextTypes [J]. Text,1983(3):305-325.
Ferris, Dana R.&Hedgcock, John S. Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process,and Practice [M].2nded. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2005.
Francis, Hazel&Hallam, Susan. Genre Effects on Higher Education Students’ TextReading for Understanding [J]. Higher Education,2000,(39):279-296.
Freedman, Aviva&Medway, Peter. Genre and the New Rhetoric [C]. London: Taylor&Francis,1994a.
Freedman, Aviva&Medway, Peter. Learning and Teaching Genre [C]. Portsmouth:Boynton/Cook Publishers,1994b.
Genung, John F. The Practical Elements of Rhetoric: with Illustrative Examples [M].Boston: Ginn&Company,1887.
Gilyard, Keith, Holdstein, Deborah H.&Schuster, Charles I. Rhetorical Choices: AReader for Writers [M].2nded. New York: Longman,2007.
Gindin, S.I. Contributions to Textlinguistics in the Soviet Union [A]. Dressler,Wolfgong U.(ed.) Current Trends in Textlinguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1977.
Glenn, Cheryl. The Harbrace Guide to Writing [M]2nded. Boston, MA: Wadsworth,2009.
G rlach, Manfred. Text Types and the History of English [M]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter,2004.
Gove, Philip Babcock. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage, Unabridged: A Merriam Webster [Z]. Springfield: Merriam-Webster,1993.
Grant-Davie, Keith. Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents[J]. Rhetoric Review,1997,15(2):264-279.
Graves, Kathleen. Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2005.
Gülich, Elisabeth&Quasthoff, Uta M. Narrative Analysis [A]. T. A van Dijk (ed.).Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Volume2)[C]. London: Academic Press,1985.
Hairston, Maxine. The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in theTeaching of Writing [J]. College Composition and Communication,1982,33(1):76-88.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976.
Halliday, M.A.K. Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration ofModality and Mood in English [J]. Foundations of Language,1970,6(3):322-361.
Hamilton, Mary. Expanding the New Literacy Studies [A]. David Barton, MaryHamilton&Roz Ivaic (eds.). Situated Literacies: Readings and Writing in Context[C]. New York: Routledge,1999.16-34.
Harned, Jon. The Intellectual Background of Alexander Bain’s “Modes of Discourse”[J]. College Composition and Communication,1985,36(1):42-50.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. Text in the Systemic-Functional Model [A]. Wolfgong U. Dressler(ed.). Current Trends in Textlinguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1977.
Hatim, Basil&Munday, Jeremy. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2010.
Helsley, Sheri L. Kairos [A]. Theresa Enos (ed.). Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [Z]. NewYork: Garland Publishing,1996.371-372.
Hill, David Jayne. The Science of Rhetoric: An Introduction to the Laws of EffectiveDiscourse [M]. New York: Sheldon&Company,1877.
Hillocks, George. Teaching Writing as Reflective Practice [M]. New York: TeachersCollege Press,1995.
Hoey, Michael. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis [M].London: Routledge,2001.
Horiba, Yukie. Reader Control in Reading: Effects of Language Competence, Text Type,and Task [J]. Discourse Processes,2000,29(3):223-267.
Huckin, Thomas N. Context-Sensitive Text Analysis [A]. Gesa Kirsch&Patricia A.Sullivan (eds.). Methods and Methodology in Composition Research [C].Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1992.
Hyland, Ken. Metadiscourse [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,2008.
Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary RhetoricalStudies [Z]. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,2001.
Johansson, Stig. Word Frequency and Text Type: Some Observations Based on the LOBCorpus of British English Texts [J]. Computers and the Humanities,1985,19(1):23-36.
Jolliffe, David A. Genre [A]. Theresa Enos (ed.). Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [Z]. NewYork: Garland Publishing,1996.279-284.
Kamberelis, George. Genre as Institutionally Informed Social Practice [J]. The Journalof Contemporary Legal Issues,1995,6(1):115-171.
Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse [M]. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall,1971.
Kinneavy, James L. Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric [A]. Jean DietzMoss (ed.). Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric toPractical Reasoning [C]. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of AmericaPress,1986.79-105.
Kipling, Kim&Murphy, Richard. Symbiosis: Writing and Academic Culture [M].Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook,1992.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. Rhetoric in American Colleges,1850-1900[M]. Dallas: SouthernMethodist University Press,1990.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. The Present State of Freshman Composition [A]. Susan Miller (ed.).The Norton Book of Composition Studies [C]. New York: W.W. Norton&Company,2009.257-270.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. Themes, Theories, and Therapy: The Teaching of Writing inCollege [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,1963.
Knoblauch, C.H.&Brannon, Lil. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing [M].Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook Publishers,1984.
Kress, Gunther. Communication and Culture: An Introduction [M]. Kensington: NewSouth Wales University Press,1988.
Kress, Gunther. Linguistic Processes in Sociolcultural Practice [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1989.
Kress, Gunther. Literacy in the New Media Age [M]. New York: Routledge,2003.
Kurokawa, Kisho. The Philosophy of Symbiosis [M]. London: Academy Group,1994.
Lanham, Richard A. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms: A Guide for Students of EnglishLiterature [Z]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1991.
Lam, Phoenix W.Y. The Effect of Text Type on the Use of So as a Discourse Particle [J].Discourse Studies,2009,11(3):353-372.
Larson, Richard L. Classifying Discourse: Limitations and Alternatives [A]. Robert J.Connors, Lisa S. Ede,&Andrea A. Lunsford (eds.). Essays on Classical Rhetoricand Modern Discourse [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University,1984.203-214.
Lepionka, Mary Ellen. Writing and Developing Your College Textbook [M].2nded.Gloucester, MA: Atlantic Path Publishing,2008.
Li, Li. The Frontiers of Linguistics: Constraints of Transitivity on Text Types [M].Xiamen: Xiamen University Press,2004.
Li, Meixia. Genre and Its Integrative Analysis Model in English Print-Media NewsSettings [M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press,2004.
Lindemann, Erika. A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers [M].4thed. New York: OxfordUniversity Press,2001.
Liu, Jinming. A Text Linguistic Approach to Intertextuality [M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2008.
Logan, Shirley Wilson. Why College English?[J]. College English,2006,69(2):107-110.
Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse [M]. New York: Plenum Press,1983.
Lunsford, Andrea A. Alexander Bain’s Contributions to Discourse Theory [J]. CollegeEnglish,1982,44(3):290-300.
Martin, J.R. Process and Text: Two Aspects of Human Semiosis [A]. Benson&Greaves(eds.). Systemic Perspectives on Discourse [C]. Vol.1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1985.248-274.
Martin, J.R.&Rose, David. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M].London: Continuum,2003.
Martin, J.R.&Rose, David. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture [M]. London: Equinox,2008.
Masters, Thomas M. Practicing Writing: The Postwar Discourse of Freshman English[M]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,2004.
Masters, Thomas. Reading the Archive of Freshman English [A]. Alexis E. Ramsey et al(eds.). Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric andComposition [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2010.157-168.
Mauranen, Anna. Cultural differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study [M].Berlin: Peter Lang,1993.
McCarthy, Michael, Matthiessen, Christian&Slade, Diana. Discourse analysis [A].Norbert Schmitt (ed.). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics [C]. Beijing: WorldPublishing Corporation,2008.
Meyer, B.J.F.&Rice, G.E. The Interaction of Reader Strategies and the Organization ofText [J]. Text,1982,2(1/3):155-192.
Miller, Carolyn R. Genre as Social Action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1984,(70):151-167.
Miller, Carolyn R. Rhetorical Community: The Cultural Basis of Genre [A]. AvivaFreedman&Peter Medway Freedman (eds.). Genre and the New Rhetoric [C].London: Taylor&Francis,1994.67-78.
Miller, George. The Prentice Hall Reader [M].10thed. Boston: Prentice Hall,2012.
Mulderig, Gerald P. Nineteenth-century psychology and the shaping of AlexanderBain’s English Composition and Rhetoric [A]. James J. Murphy (ed.). TheRheorical Tradition and Modern Writing [C]. New York: The Modern LanguageAssociation of America,1982.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies [M]. London: Routledge,2001.
Newman, Samuel P. A Practical System of Rhetoric, or, The Principles and Rules ofStyle: Inferred from Examples of Writing [M].2nded. Portland: William Hyde,1827.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducation Press,2001.
Nystrand, Martin. The Structure of Written Communication: Studies in ReciprocityBetween Writers and Readers [M]. Orlando: Academic Press,1986.
O’Rourke, Sean Patrick. Modes of Discourse [A]. Theresa Enos (ed.). Encyclopedia ofRhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the InformationAge [Z]. New York: Garland Publishing,1996.446-447.
Paltridge, Brian. Genre, Text Type, and the Language Learning Classroom [J]. ELTJournal,1996,50(3):237-243.
Panico, James&Healey, E. Charles. Influence of Text Type, Topic Familiarity, andStuttering Frequency on Listener Recall, Comprehension, and Mental Effort [J].Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,2009,(52):534-546.
Parker, Ian. Discourse: Definitions and Contradictions [J]. Philosophical Psychology,1990,3(2):189-204.
Parker, Richard Green. Aids to English Composition, Prepared for Students of AllGrades: Embracing Specimens and Examples of School and College Exercises,and Most of the Higher Departments of English Composition, Both in Prose andVerse [M]. New York: Harper&Brothers,1845.
Ramage, John D.&Bean, John C., Johnson, June. The Allyn&Bacon Guide to Writing[M].6thed. New York: Longman,2009.
Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers [M].9thed. Boston:Prentice Hall,2011.
Reinking, James A.&Osten, Robert von der. Strategies for Successful Writing: ARhetoric, Research Guide, Reader, and Handbook [M].9thed. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall,2011.
Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Renkema, Jan. Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2009.
Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1936.
Roen, Duane H.&Glau, Gregory R., Maid, Barry M. The McGraw-Hill Guide: Writingfor College, Writing for Life [M].2nded. New York: McGraw-Hill,2010.
Rose, Mike. Sophisticated, Ineffective Books: The Dismantling of Process inComposition Texts [J]. College Composition and Communication,1981,32(1):65-74.
Sager, J.C. Text types and Translation [A]. Anna Trosborg (ed.). Text Typology andTranslation [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1997.
Sapp, Jan. Evolution by Association: A History of Symbiosis [M]. New York: OxfordUniversity Press,1994.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Some Problems of Communicative Text Theories [A]. WolfgongU. Dressler (ed.) Current Trends in Textlinguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1977.
Schultz, Lucille M. Foreword [A]. Gesa E. Kirsch&Liz Rohan (eds.). Beyond theArchives: Research as a Lived Process [C]. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press,2008. vii-x.
Seiber, Stuart A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age [M]. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press,2004.
Sinclair, J. McH. On the Integration of Linguistic Description [A]. T. A. van Dijk,Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Volume2)[C]. London: Academic Press,1985.
Sloane, Thomas O. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric [Z]. New York: Oxford University Press,2001.
Smith, Carlota S. Modes of Discourse: The Local Structure [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
Smith, Edward L. Text Type and Discourse Framework [J]. Text,1985(5):229-247.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Stubbs, Michael. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Languageand Culture [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,1996.
Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Tardy, Christine M. Building Genre Knowledge [M]. West Lafayette: Parlor Press,2009.
Tate, Gary, Rupiper, Amy&Schick, Kurt. A Guide to Composition Pedagogies [C].New York: Oxford University Press,2001.
Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Taylor, Mark Edward. A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure ofJames [M]. London: T&T Clark International,2006.
Taylor, Warner. A National Survey of Conditions in Freshman English (1929)[A]. JohnC. Brereton (ed.). The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College,1875-1925[C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1995.545-562.
The Council of Writing Program Administrators. WPA Outcomes Statement forFirst-Year Composition [J/OL].2008,7.[2011-11-26]http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes. html.
Todorov, Tzvetan. Genres in Discourse [M]. Trans. by Catherine Porter. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Todorov, Tzvetan. The Origin of Genres [A]. David Duff (ed.). Modern Genre Theory[C]. Harlow: Longman,2000.193-209.
Trosborg, Anna. Text Typology and Translation [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,1997.
Unger, Christoph. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence: The Pragmatics ofDiscourse Type [M]. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation,2008.
van Dijk, T. A. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures inDiscourse, Interaction, and Cognition [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,1980.
van Dijk, Teun A. Discourse and Power [M]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
VanderMey, Randall, et al. The College Writer: A Guide to Thinking, Writing, andResearching [M].4thed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth,2009.
Vatz, Richards E. The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1973,6(3):154-161.
Virtanen, Tuija. Issues of Text Typology: Narrative----a ‘Basic’ Type of Text?[J]. Text,1992,12(2):293-310.
Virtanen, Tuija. On the Definitions of ‘Text’ and ‘Discourse’[J]. Folia Linguistica,1990,24(3-4):447-455.
Walzer, Arthur E.&Beard, David. Historiography and the Study of Rhetoric [A].Lunsford, Andrea A., Wilson, Kirt H.&Eberly, Rosa A.(eds.). The SAGEHandbook of Rhetorical Studies [C]. Los Angels: SAGE,2009.13-33.
Weaver, Janessa Ann. Text Structure Knowledge of Pre-Service Teachers [D]. StateCollege: The Pennsylvania State University,2010.
Welch, Kathleen E. Ideology and Freshman Textbook Production: The Place of Theoryin Writing Pedagogy [J]. College Composition and Communication,1987,38(3):269-282.
Werlich, Egon. A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle&Meyer,1983.
White, Eric Charles. Kaironomia: On the Will to Invent [M]. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press,1987.
Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis [M].Malden: Blackwell Publishing,2004.
Wilss, Wolfram. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Xin, Bin. Intertextuality from a Critical Perspective [M]. Suzhou: Suzhou UniversityPress,2000.
You, Xiaoye. Writing in the Devil’s Tongue: A History of English Composition in China[M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2010.
Young, Richard. Arts, Crafts, Gifts and Knacks: Some Disharmonies in the NewRhetoric [A]. Aviva Freedman&Ian Pringle (eds.). Reinventing the RhetoricalTradition [C]. Ontario: Canadian Council of Teachers of English,1980.53-60.
Yu, Hui. Discourse as Genre: Arresting Semiotics in Research Paper Abstracts [M].Kaifeng: Henan University Press,2004.
Zhang, Yufang. Studies in the Symbolic Interaction of Speech Discourse [D]. Shanghai:Shanghai International Studies University,2008.
Zwaan, R. A. Effects of Genre Expectations on Text Comprehension [J]. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,1994,20(4):920–933.
埃德加,安德鲁.哈贝马斯:关键概念[M].杨礼银,朱松峰译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2009.
巴赫金.巴赫金全集（第4卷）[M].白春仁等译.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2009.
蔡慧萍.我国高校英语写作教材的现状调查分析与思考[J].外语与外语教学,2005(6):29-31.
——.语类—过程英语写作教程[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2012.
崔希亮.语言学概论[M].北京:上午印书馆,2009.
邓炎昌,刘润清.语言与文化:英汉语言文化对比[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
邓志勇.高级英语写作[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2008.
丁往道等.英语写作手册(第三版)[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2009.
段建军,李伟.新编写作思维学教程[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2008.
冯广义.互动：修辞的运作方式[J].修辞学习,1999,(4):1-2.
冯幼民.高级英文写作教程:论文写作(第2版)[M].北京大学出版社,2010.
郭桥,资建民.大学逻辑导论[M].北京:人民出版社,2003.
哈贝马斯,尤尔根.交往行为理论:行为合理性与社会合理化[M].曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
胡曙中.西方修辞学:当今语言研究之理论渊源[J].外语电化教学,2008,(122):47-53.
——.现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
——.英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
——.西方新修辞学概论[M].湘潭:湘潭大学出版社,2009.
——.语篇语言学导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2012.
胡文仲.跨文化交际学概论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
韩金龙,秦秀白.体裁分析与体裁教学法[J].外语界,2000(1):11-18.
黄国文.语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
黄友嫦.英语写作教材学生评价的实证研究[J].国外外语教学,2004(3):18-23.
贾玉新.跨文化交际学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
贾志高,程杰.论隐喻互动论和认知互动论的统一[J].四川外语学院学报,2002,18(2):70-73.
姜望琪.语篇语言学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
金振邦.文章体裁辞典[Z].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1986.
克里斯特尔,戴维.现代语言学词典(第四版)[Z].沈家煊译.北京:商务印书馆,2011.
蓝纯.导读[A]. Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in LinguisticTheory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
李良佑,张日昇,刘犁.中国英语教学史[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1988.
李美霞.话语类型理论的延展与实践[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2010.
——.话语类型研究[M].北京:科学出版社,2007.
林大津.跨文化言语交际：互动语用修辞观[D].福建师范大学,2006.
刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
刘辰诞,赵秀凤.什么是篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
——.追求象征的力量:关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:生活读书新知三联书店,2004.
陆谷孙.英汉大词典(第2版)[Z].上海:上海译文出版社,2007.
马红军，毛卓亮.高级英语写作教程[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
梅晓娟.高级英语写作[M].合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2009.
彭宣维.英汉语篇综合对比[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
祁寿华.西方写作理论、教学与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
钱敏汝.篇章语用学概论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
秦秀白.体裁教学法述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000,32(1):42-46.
秦朝霞.国内大学英语写作研究现状及发展趋势分析[J].现代外语,2009(2):195-204.
陶嘉炜.写作与文化[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1998.
涂家金.话语批评主体性问题的修辞阐释[J].中南大学学报,2012,18(2):194-199.
王伯恭.中国百科大辞典(8)[Z].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1999.
王星.英语专业写作[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王振昌,毛卓亮,董启明.高级英文写作教程(第2版)[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2009.
王正.现代写作范畴论[M].南京市:南京大学出版社,2010.
夏莉.现代英语写作研究发展脉络及流派评析[J].郑州大学学报,2004(1):152-154.
夏征农,陈至立.辞海(第六版)[Z].上海辞书出版社,2010.
肖福寿,王冬玲.当代高级英语写作[M].上海:上海大学出版社,2005.
徐鲁亚.西方修辞学导论[M].北京:中央民族大学出版社,2010.
许余龙.对比语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
亚里士多德.范畴篇解释篇[M].方书春译.北京:商务印书馆,2009.
亚里斯多德.诗学[M].罗念生译.北京:人民文学出版社,2002.
亚里斯多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.上海:上海人民出版社,2006.
严世清.隐喻理论史探[J].外国语,1995,(5):27-31.
杨信川.语言学导论[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2006.
叶蜚声,徐通锵.语言学纲要[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1981.
于晖.语篇体裁概念之理论溯源[J].北京师范大学学报,2009(4):61-67.
袁影,蒋严.论“修辞情景”的基本要素及核心成分——兼评比彻尔等“修辞情景”观[J].修辞学习,2009,(4):1-8.
张春兴.张氏心理学辞典[Z].台北:东华书局,1989.
张德禄.语类研究概览[J].外国语,2002a,(4):13-22.
张德禄.语类研究理论框架探索[J].外语教学与研究,2002b,34(5):339-344.
张建民.关注英语写作教学与研究发展现状[J/OL].21世纪英语教育，2008，11(24):144[2011-12-26]. http://paper.i21st.cn/story/46113.html.
张在新等.我国英语写作教学中的主要问题[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(4):43-50.
甄艳华.高级英语写作[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
中国大百科全书总编委会.中国大百科全书（第二版）[Z].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,2009.
周国强.高级英语写作教程[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2004.
邹申.写作教程(第2版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
①参见Sharon Crowley（1998）的“Around1971: The Emergence of Process Pedagogy”一文。
②见周耀东.西方修辞与中国的外语教育——刘亚猛教授访谈[J].外国语言文学,2004,(1):1-5.
Allen, Graham. Intertextuality [M]. London: Routledge,2000.
Anson, Chris M. Text Analysis [A]. Mary Lynch Kennedy (ed.). TheorizingComposition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and Scholarship in ContemporaryComposition Studies [Z]. Westport: Greenwood Press,1998.323-331.
Aristotle. Rhetoric [M]. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: Random House,1954.
Atwill, J. M. Contingencies of Historical Representation [A]. Vitanza, V.J.(ed.). WritingHistories of Rhetoric [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1994.98-111.
Axelrod, Rise B.&Cooper, Charles R. The St. Martin’s Guide to Writing [M].9thed.Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,2010.
Badger, R.&White, G. A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing [J]. ELT Journal,2000,54(2):153-60.
Bain, Alexander. English Composition and Rhetoric: A Manual [M]. New York: D.Appleton and Company,1867.
Barbara, Johnstone. Discourse Analysis [M].2nded. Malden: Blackwell Publishing,2008.
Bawarshi, Anis S.&Reiff, Mary Jo. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory,Research, and Pedagogy [M]. West Lafayette: Parlor Press,2010.
Bawarshi, Anis. The Genre Function [J]. College English,2000,62(3):335-360.
Bazerman, Charles. The Life of Genre, the Life in the Classroom [A]. W. Bishop&H.Ostrom (eds.). Genre and Writing: Issues, Arguments, Alternatives [C]. Portsmouth,NH: Boynton/Cook,1997.19-26.
Beaugrande, Robert de&Dressler, Wolfgang. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M].London: Longman,1981.
Beaugrande, Robert de. Text Production: Toward a Science of Composition [M].Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation,1984.
Beekman, John&Callow, John&Kopesec, Michael. The Semantic Structure of WrittenCommunication [M].5thed. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics,1981.
Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. New York:Longman,1991.
Berkenkotter, Carol&Huckin, Thomas N. Genre Knowledge in DisciplinaryCommunication: Cognition, Culture, Power [M]. Hillsdale: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,1995.
Berlin, James A. Poststructuralism, Cultural Studies, and the Composition Classroom:Postmodern Theory in Practice [J]. Rhetoric Review,1992,11(1):16-33.
Berlin, James A. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges,1900-1985[M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1987.
Berlin, James A. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges [M].Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1984.
Berlin, James. Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories [J].College English,1982,44(8):765-777.
Biber, Douglas&Finegan, Edward. An Initial Typology of English Text Types [A]. JanAarts&William Meijs (eds.). Corpus Linguistics II [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,1986.19-46.
Biber, Douglas. A Typology of English Texts [J]. Linguistics,1989(27):3-43.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. The Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1968,1(1):1-14.
Bj rk, Lennart. Text Types, Textual Consciousness and Academic Writing Ability [A]. L.Bj rk, G. Br uer, L. Rienecker&P. Stray J rgensen (eds.). Teaching AcademicWriting in European Higher Education [C]. Kluwer Academic Publishers,2003.29-40.
Blommaert, Jan. Discourse: A Critical Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2005.
Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication [M].Malden: Blackwell Publishing,2004.
Boswell, Grant. The Disfunction of Rhetoric: Invention, Imaginative Excess, and theOrigin of the Modes of Discourse [J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,1988,18(3/4):237-250.
Bramer, George R. Right Rhetoric: Classical Roots for Contemporary Aims in Writing[A]. Jean Dietz Moss (ed.). Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of ClassicalRhetoric to Practical Reasoning [C]. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University ofAmerica Press,1986.135-155.
Britton, James et al. The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18)[M]. Hong Kong:Macmillan Education,1975.
Brown, Gillian&Yule, George. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1983.
Bühler, K. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language [M]. Trans.by D.E. Goodwin. Amsterdam: Benjamins,1990.
Bullock, Richard H.&Goggin, Maureen Daly, Weinberg, Francine. The Norton FieldGuide to Writing, with Readings and Handbook [M].2nded. New York: W. W.Norton,2010.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1969.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1969.
Burke, Kenneth. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. Lee Thayer (ed.). Communication:Ethical and Moral Issues [C]. New York: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers,1973.263-275.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [Z]. trans. anded. by Gregory P. Trauth&Kerstin Kazzazi. Beijing: Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,2000.
Caenepeel, Mimo. Aspect and Text Structure [J]. Linguistics,1995,(33):213-253.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776)[M]. Cambridge:Chadwyck-Healey,1999.
Carr, Jean Ferguson, Carr, Stephen L., Schultz, Lucille M. Archives of Instruction:Nineteenth-Century Rhetorics, Readers, and Composition Books in the UnitedStates [M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2005.
Chen, Yaping. A Study in Generic Intertextuality [D]. Shanghai: Shanghai InternationalStudies University,2008.
Clark, Irene L. Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching ofWriting [Z].2nded. New York: Routledge,2012.
Clark, Irene L. Genre [A]. Irene Clark L. et al.(eds.). Concepts in Composition: Theoryand Practice in Teaching of Writing [Z].2nded. New York: Routledge,2012.
Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-LanguageWriting [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Connors, Robert J. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy [M].Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1997.
Connors, Robert J. The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse [J]. CollegeComposition and Communication,1981,32(4):444-455.
Corbett, Edward P.J.&Connors, Robert J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student[M].4thed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999.
Crowley, Sharon&Hawhee, Debra. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students [M].4thed. New York: Pearson Education,2009.
Crowley, Sharon&Stancliff, Michael. Critical Situations: A Rhetoric for Writing inCommunities [M]. New York: Longman,2008.
Crowley, Sharon. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays [M].Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1998.
Crowley, Sharon. The Methodical Memory: Invention in Current-Traditional Rhetoric[M]. Carbondale&Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press,1990.
D’Angelo, Frank J. A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric [M]. Cambridge: WinthropPublishers,1975.
D’Angelo, Frank J. Imitation and Style [J]. College Composition and Communication,1973,24(3):283-290.
D’Angelo, Frank. Nineteenth-Century Forms/Modes of Discourse: A Critical Inquiry [J].College Composition and Communication,1984,35(1):31-42.
Dean, Deborah. Genre Theory: Teaching, Writing, and Being [M]. Urbana: The NationalCouncil of Teachers of English,2008.
Devitt, Amy J. Generalizing about Genre: New Conceptions of an Old Concept [J].College Composition and Communication,1993,44(4):573-586.
Devitt, Amy J. Writing Genres [M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2004.
Devitt, Amy, Reiff, Mary Jo&Bawarshi, Anis. Scenes of Writing: Strategies forComposing with Genres [M]. New York: Longman,2004.
Diakidoy, Irene-Anna N., Stylianou, Polyxeni, Karefillidou, Christina&Papageorgiou,Panayiota. The Relationship Between Listening and Reading Comprehension ofDifferent Types of Text at Increasing Grade Levels [J]. Reading Psychology,2005(26):55-80.
Donovan, Timothy R.&McClelland, Ben W. Eight Approaches to TeachingComposition [C]. Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers of English,1980.
Dooley, Robert A.&Levinsohn, Stephen H. Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of BasicConcepts [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2008.
Duff, David. Modern Genre Theory [C]. Harlow: Longman,2000.
Enkvist, Nils Erik. Contrastive Linguistics and Text Linguistics [A]. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.).Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter&Co.,1984.
Enos, Richard Leo. Rhetorical Archaeology: Established Resources, MethodologicalTools, and Basic Research Methods [A]. Andrea A. Lunsford, Kirt H. Wilson, RosaA. Eberly (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies [C]. Los Angeles:SAGE,2009.35-52.
Enos, Theresa. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication fromAncient Times to the Information Age [Z]. New York: Garland Publishing,1996.
Esser, Jürgen. Introduction to English Text-Linguistics [M]. Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang,2009.
Faigley, Lester&Hansen, Kristine. Learning to Write in the Social Sciences [J].College Composition and Communication,1985,36(2):140-149.
Faigley, Lester&Meyer, Paul. Rhetorical Theory and Readers’ Classifications of TextTypes [J]. Text,1983(3):305-325.
Ferris, Dana R.&Hedgcock, John S. Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process,and Practice [M].2nded. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2005.
Francis, Hazel&Hallam, Susan. Genre Effects on Higher Education Students’ TextReading for Understanding [J]. Higher Education,2000,(39):279-296.
Freedman, Aviva&Medway, Peter. Genre and the New Rhetoric [C]. London: Taylor&Francis,1994a.
Freedman, Aviva&Medway, Peter. Learning and Teaching Genre [C]. Portsmouth:Boynton/Cook Publishers,1994b.
Genung, John F. The Practical Elements of Rhetoric: with Illustrative Examples [M].Boston: Ginn&Company,1887.
Gilyard, Keith, Holdstein, Deborah H.&Schuster, Charles I. Rhetorical Choices: AReader for Writers [M].2nded. New York: Longman,2007.
Gindin, S.I. Contributions to Textlinguistics in the Soviet Union [A]. Dressler,Wolfgong U.(ed.) Current Trends in Textlinguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1977.
Glenn, Cheryl. The Harbrace Guide to Writing [M]2nded. Boston, MA: Wadsworth,2009.
G rlach, Manfred. Text Types and the History of English [M]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter,2004.
Gove, Philip Babcock. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage, Unabridged: A Merriam Webster [Z]. Springfield: Merriam-Webster,1993.
Grant-Davie, Keith. Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents[J]. Rhetoric Review,1997,15(2):264-279.
Graves, Kathleen. Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2005.
Gülich, Elisabeth&Quasthoff, Uta M. Narrative Analysis [A]. T. A van Dijk (ed.).Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Volume2)[C]. London: Academic Press,1985.
Hairston, Maxine. The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in theTeaching of Writing [J]. College Composition and Communication,1982,33(1):76-88.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976.
Halliday, M.A.K. Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration ofModality and Mood in English [J]. Foundations of Language,1970,6(3):322-361.
Hamilton, Mary. Expanding the New Literacy Studies [A]. David Barton, MaryHamilton&Roz Ivaic (eds.). Situated Literacies: Readings and Writing in Context[C]. New York: Routledge,1999.16-34.
Harned, Jon. The Intellectual Background of Alexander Bain’s “Modes of Discourse”[J]. College Composition and Communication,1985,36(1):42-50.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. Text in the Systemic-Functional Model [A]. Wolfgong U. Dressler(ed.). Current Trends in Textlinguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1977.
Hatim, Basil&Munday, Jeremy. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2010.
Helsley, Sheri L. Kairos [A]. Theresa Enos (ed.). Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [Z]. NewYork: Garland Publishing,1996.371-372.
Hill, David Jayne. The Science of Rhetoric: An Introduction to the Laws of EffectiveDiscourse [M]. New York: Sheldon&Company,1877.
Hillocks, George. Teaching Writing as Reflective Practice [M]. New York: TeachersCollege Press,1995.
Hoey, Michael. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis [M].London: Routledge,2001.
Horiba, Yukie. Reader Control in Reading: Effects of Language Competence, Text Type,and Task [J]. Discourse Processes,2000,29(3):223-267.
Huckin, Thomas N. Context-Sensitive Text Analysis [A]. Gesa Kirsch&Patricia A.Sullivan (eds.). Methods and Methodology in Composition Research [C].Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1992.
Hyland, Ken. Metadiscourse [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,2008.
Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary RhetoricalStudies [Z]. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,2001.
Johansson, Stig. Word Frequency and Text Type: Some Observations Based on the LOBCorpus of British English Texts [J]. Computers and the Humanities,1985,19(1):23-36.
Jolliffe, David A. Genre [A]. Theresa Enos (ed.). Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [Z]. NewYork: Garland Publishing,1996.279-284.
Kamberelis, George. Genre as Institutionally Informed Social Practice [J]. The Journalof Contemporary Legal Issues,1995,6(1):115-171.
Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse [M]. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall,1971.
Kinneavy, James L. Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric [A]. Jean DietzMoss (ed.). Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric toPractical Reasoning [C]. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of AmericaPress,1986.79-105.
Kipling, Kim&Murphy, Richard. Symbiosis: Writing and Academic Culture [M].Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook,1992.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. Rhetoric in American Colleges,1850-1900[M]. Dallas: SouthernMethodist University Press,1990.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. The Present State of Freshman Composition [A]. Susan Miller (ed.).The Norton Book of Composition Studies [C]. New York: W.W. Norton&Company,2009.257-270.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. Themes, Theories, and Therapy: The Teaching of Writing inCollege [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,1963.
Knoblauch, C.H.&Brannon, Lil. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing [M].Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook Publishers,1984.
Kress, Gunther. Communication and Culture: An Introduction [M]. Kensington: NewSouth Wales University Press,1988.
Kress, Gunther. Linguistic Processes in Sociolcultural Practice [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1989.
Kress, Gunther. Literacy in the New Media Age [M]. New York: Routledge,2003.
Kurokawa, Kisho. The Philosophy of Symbiosis [M]. London: Academy Group,1994.
Lanham, Richard A. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms: A Guide for Students of EnglishLiterature [Z]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1991.
Lam, Phoenix W.Y. The Effect of Text Type on the Use of So as a Discourse Particle [J].Discourse Studies,2009,11(3):353-372.
Larson, Richard L. Classifying Discourse: Limitations and Alternatives [A]. Robert J.Connors, Lisa S. Ede,&Andrea A. Lunsford (eds.). Essays on Classical Rhetoricand Modern Discourse [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University,1984.203-214.
Lepionka, Mary Ellen. Writing and Developing Your College Textbook [M].2nded.Gloucester, MA: Atlantic Path Publishing,2008.
Li, Li. The Frontiers of Linguistics: Constraints of Transitivity on Text Types [M].Xiamen: Xiamen University Press,2004.
Li, Meixia. Genre and Its Integrative Analysis Model in English Print-Media NewsSettings [M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press,2004.
Lindemann, Erika. A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers [M].4thed. New York: OxfordUniversity Press,2001.
Liu, Jinming. A Text Linguistic Approach to Intertextuality [M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2008.
Logan, Shirley Wilson. Why College English?[J]. College English,2006,69(2):107-110.
Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse [M]. New York: Plenum Press,1983.
Lunsford, Andrea A. Alexander Bain’s Contributions to Discourse Theory [J]. CollegeEnglish,1982,44(3):290-300.
Martin, J.R. Process and Text: Two Aspects of Human Semiosis [A]. Benson&Greaves(eds.). Systemic Perspectives on Discourse [C]. Vol.1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1985.248-274.
Martin, J.R.&Rose, David. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M].London: Continuum,2003.
Martin, J.R.&Rose, David. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture [M]. London: Equinox,2008.
Masters, Thomas M. Practicing Writing: The Postwar Discourse of Freshman English[M]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,2004.
Masters, Thomas. Reading the Archive of Freshman English [A]. Alexis E. Ramsey et al(eds.). Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric andComposition [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2010.157-168.
Mauranen, Anna. Cultural differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study [M].Berlin: Peter Lang,1993.
McCarthy, Michael, Matthiessen, Christian&Slade, Diana. Discourse analysis [A].Norbert Schmitt (ed.). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics [C]. Beijing: WorldPublishing Corporation,2008.
Meyer, B.J.F.&Rice, G.E. The Interaction of Reader Strategies and the Organization ofText [J]. Text,1982,2(1/3):155-192.
Miller, Carolyn R. Genre as Social Action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1984,(70):151-167.
Miller, Carolyn R. Rhetorical Community: The Cultural Basis of Genre [A]. AvivaFreedman&Peter Medway Freedman (eds.). Genre and the New Rhetoric [C].London: Taylor&Francis,1994.67-78.
Miller, George. The Prentice Hall Reader [M].10thed. Boston: Prentice Hall,2012.
Mulderig, Gerald P. Nineteenth-century psychology and the shaping of AlexanderBain’s English Composition and Rhetoric [A]. James J. Murphy (ed.). TheRheorical Tradition and Modern Writing [C]. New York: The Modern LanguageAssociation of America,1982.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies [M]. London: Routledge,2001.
Newman, Samuel P. A Practical System of Rhetoric, or, The Principles and Rules ofStyle: Inferred from Examples of Writing [M].2nded. Portland: William Hyde,1827.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducation Press,2001.
Nystrand, Martin. The Structure of Written Communication: Studies in ReciprocityBetween Writers and Readers [M]. Orlando: Academic Press,1986.
O’Rourke, Sean Patrick. Modes of Discourse [A]. Theresa Enos (ed.). Encyclopedia ofRhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the InformationAge [Z]. New York: Garland Publishing,1996.446-447.
Paltridge, Brian. Genre, Text Type, and the Language Learning Classroom [J]. ELTJournal,1996,50(3):237-243.
Panico, James&Healey, E. Charles. Influence of Text Type, Topic Familiarity, andStuttering Frequency on Listener Recall, Comprehension, and Mental Effort [J].Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,2009,(52):534-546.
Parker, Ian. Discourse: Definitions and Contradictions [J]. Philosophical Psychology,1990,3(2):189-204.
Parker, Richard Green. Aids to English Composition, Prepared for Students of AllGrades: Embracing Specimens and Examples of School and College Exercises,and Most of the Higher Departments of English Composition, Both in Prose andVerse [M]. New York: Harper&Brothers,1845.
Ramage, John D.&Bean, John C., Johnson, June. The Allyn&Bacon Guide to Writing[M].6thed. New York: Longman,2009.
Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers [M].9thed. Boston:Prentice Hall,2011.
Reinking, James A.&Osten, Robert von der. Strategies for Successful Writing: ARhetoric, Research Guide, Reader, and Handbook [M].9thed. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall,2011.
Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Renkema, Jan. Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2009.
Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1936.
Roen, Duane H.&Glau, Gregory R., Maid, Barry M. The McGraw-Hill Guide: Writingfor College, Writing for Life [M].2nded. New York: McGraw-Hill,2010.
Rose, Mike. Sophisticated, Ineffective Books: The Dismantling of Process inComposition Texts [J]. College Composition and Communication,1981,32(1):65-74.
Sager, J.C. Text types and Translation [A]. Anna Trosborg (ed.). Text Typology andTranslation [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1997.
Sapp, Jan. Evolution by Association: A History of Symbiosis [M]. New York: OxfordUniversity Press,1994.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Some Problems of Communicative Text Theories [A]. WolfgongU. Dressler (ed.) Current Trends in Textlinguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1977.
Schultz, Lucille M. Foreword [A]. Gesa E. Kirsch&Liz Rohan (eds.). Beyond theArchives: Research as a Lived Process [C]. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press,2008. vii-x.
Seiber, Stuart A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age [M]. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press,2004.
Sinclair, J. McH. On the Integration of Linguistic Description [A]. T. A. van Dijk,Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Volume2)[C]. London: Academic Press,1985.
Sloane, Thomas O. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric [Z]. New York: Oxford University Press,2001.
Smith, Carlota S. Modes of Discourse: The Local Structure [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
Smith, Edward L. Text Type and Discourse Framework [J]. Text,1985(5):229-247.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Stubbs, Michael. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Languageand Culture [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,1996.
Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Tardy, Christine M. Building Genre Knowledge [M]. West Lafayette: Parlor Press,2009.
Tate, Gary, Rupiper, Amy&Schick, Kurt. A Guide to Composition Pedagogies [C].New York: Oxford University Press,2001.
Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Taylor, Mark Edward. A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure ofJames [M]. London: T&T Clark International,2006.
Taylor, Warner. A National Survey of Conditions in Freshman English (1929)[A]. JohnC. Brereton (ed.). The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College,1875-1925[C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1995.545-562.
The Council of Writing Program Administrators. WPA Outcomes Statement forFirst-Year Composition [J/OL].2008,7.[2011-11-26]http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes. html.
Todorov, Tzvetan. Genres in Discourse [M]. Trans. by Catherine Porter. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Todorov, Tzvetan. The Origin of Genres [A]. David Duff (ed.). Modern Genre Theory[C]. Harlow: Longman,2000.193-209.
Trosborg, Anna. Text Typology and Translation [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,1997.
Unger, Christoph. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence: The Pragmatics ofDiscourse Type [M]. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation,2008.
van Dijk, T. A. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures inDiscourse, Interaction, and Cognition [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,1980.
van Dijk, Teun A. Discourse and Power [M]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
VanderMey, Randall, et al. The College Writer: A Guide to Thinking, Writing, andResearching [M].4thed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth,2009.
Vatz, Richards E. The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1973,6(3):154-161.
Virtanen, Tuija. Issues of Text Typology: Narrative----a ‘Basic’ Type of Text?[J]. Text,1992,12(2):293-310.
Virtanen, Tuija. On the Definitions of ‘Text’ and ‘Discourse’[J]. Folia Linguistica,1990,24(3-4):447-455.
Walzer, Arthur E.&Beard, David. Historiography and the Study of Rhetoric [A].Lunsford, Andrea A., Wilson, Kirt H.&Eberly, Rosa A.(eds.). The SAGEHandbook of Rhetorical Studies [C]. Los Angels: SAGE,2009.13-33.
Weaver, Janessa Ann. Text Structure Knowledge of Pre-Service Teachers [D]. StateCollege: The Pennsylvania State University,2010.
Welch, Kathleen E. Ideology and Freshman Textbook Production: The Place of Theoryin Writing Pedagogy [J]. College Composition and Communication,1987,38(3):269-282.
Werlich, Egon. A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle&Meyer,1983.
White, Eric Charles. Kaironomia: On the Will to Invent [M]. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press,1987.
Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis [M].Malden: Blackwell Publishing,2004.
Wilss, Wolfram. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Xin, Bin. Intertextuality from a Critical Perspective [M]. Suzhou: Suzhou UniversityPress,2000.
You, Xiaoye. Writing in the Devil’s Tongue: A History of English Composition in China[M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,2010.
Young, Richard. Arts, Crafts, Gifts and Knacks: Some Disharmonies in the NewRhetoric [A]. Aviva Freedman&Ian Pringle (eds.). Reinventing the RhetoricalTradition [C]. Ontario: Canadian Council of Teachers of English,1980.53-60.
Yu, Hui. Discourse as Genre: Arresting Semiotics in Research Paper Abstracts [M].Kaifeng: Henan University Press,2004.
Zhang, Yufang. Studies in the Symbolic Interaction of Speech Discourse [D]. Shanghai:Shanghai International Studies University,2008.
Zwaan, R. A. Effects of Genre Expectations on Text Comprehension [J]. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,1994,20(4):920–933.
埃德加,安德鲁.哈贝马斯:关键概念[M].杨礼银,朱松峰译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2009.
巴赫金.巴赫金全集（第4卷）[M].白春仁等译.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2009.
蔡慧萍.我国高校英语写作教材的现状调查分析与思考[J].外语与外语教学,2005(6):29-31.
——.语类—过程英语写作教程[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2012.
崔希亮.语言学概论[M].北京:上午印书馆,2009.
邓炎昌,刘润清.语言与文化:英汉语言文化对比[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
邓志勇.高级英语写作[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2008.
丁往道等.英语写作手册(第三版)[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2009.
段建军,李伟.新编写作思维学教程[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2008.
冯广义.互动：修辞的运作方式[J].修辞学习,1999,(4):1-2.
冯幼民.高级英文写作教程:论文写作(第2版)[M].北京大学出版社,2010.
郭桥,资建民.大学逻辑导论[M].北京:人民出版社,2003.
哈贝马斯,尤尔根.交往行为理论:行为合理性与社会合理化[M].曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
胡曙中.西方修辞学:当今语言研究之理论渊源[J].外语电化教学,2008,(122):47-53.
——.现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
——.英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
——.西方新修辞学概论[M].湘潭:湘潭大学出版社,2009.
——.语篇语言学导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2012.
胡文仲.跨文化交际学概论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
韩金龙,秦秀白.体裁分析与体裁教学法[J].外语界,2000(1):11-18.
黄国文.语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
黄友嫦.英语写作教材学生评价的实证研究[J].国外外语教学,2004(3):18-23.
贾玉新.跨文化交际学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
贾志高,程杰.论隐喻互动论和认知互动论的统一[J].四川外语学院学报,2002,18(2):70-73.
姜望琪.语篇语言学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
金振邦.文章体裁辞典[Z].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1986.
克里斯特尔,戴维.现代语言学词典(第四版)[Z].沈家煊译.北京:商务印书馆,2011.
蓝纯.导读[A]. Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in LinguisticTheory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
李良佑,张日昇,刘犁.中国英语教学史[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1988.
李美霞.话语类型理论的延展与实践[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2010.
——.话语类型研究[M].北京:科学出版社,2007.
林大津.跨文化言语交际：互动语用修辞观[D].福建师范大学,2006.
刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
刘辰诞,赵秀凤.什么是篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
——.追求象征的力量:关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:生活读书新知三联书店,2004.
陆谷孙.英汉大词典(第2版)[Z].上海:上海译文出版社,2007.
马红军，毛卓亮.高级英语写作教程[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
梅晓娟.高级英语写作[M].合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2009.
彭宣维.英汉语篇综合对比[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
祁寿华.西方写作理论、教学与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
钱敏汝.篇章语用学概论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
秦秀白.体裁教学法述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000,32(1):42-46.
秦朝霞.国内大学英语写作研究现状及发展趋势分析[J].现代外语,2009(2):195-204.
陶嘉炜.写作与文化[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1998.
涂家金.话语批评主体性问题的修辞阐释[J].中南大学学报,2012,18(2):194-199.
王伯恭.中国百科大辞典(8)[Z].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1999.
王星.英语专业写作[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王振昌,毛卓亮,董启明.高级英文写作教程(第2版)[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2009.
王正.现代写作范畴论[M].南京市:南京大学出版社,2010.
夏莉.现代英语写作研究发展脉络及流派评析[J].郑州大学学报,2004(1):152-154.
夏征农,陈至立.辞海(第六版)[Z].上海辞书出版社,2010.
肖福寿,王冬玲.当代高级英语写作[M].上海:上海大学出版社,2005.
徐鲁亚.西方修辞学导论[M].北京:中央民族大学出版社,2010.
许余龙.对比语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
亚里士多德.范畴篇解释篇[M].方书春译.北京:商务印书馆,2009.
亚里斯多德.诗学[M].罗念生译.北京:人民文学出版社,2002.
亚里斯多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.上海:上海人民出版社,2006.
严世清.隐喻理论史探[J].外国语,1995,(5):27-31.
杨信川.语言学导论[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2006.
叶蜚声,徐通锵.语言学纲要[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1981.
于晖.语篇体裁概念之理论溯源[J].北京师范大学学报,2009(4):61-67.
袁影,蒋严.论“修辞情景”的基本要素及核心成分——兼评比彻尔等“修辞情景”观[J].修辞学习,2009,(4):1-8.
张春兴.张氏心理学辞典[Z].台北:东华书局,1989.
张德禄.语类研究概览[J].外国语,2002a,(4):13-22.
张德禄.语类研究理论框架探索[J].外语教学与研究,2002b,34(5):339-344.
张建民.关注英语写作教学与研究发展现状[J/OL].21世纪英语教育，2008，11(24):144[2011-12-26]. http://paper.i21st.cn/story/46113.html.
张在新等.我国英语写作教学中的主要问题[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(4):43-50.
甄艳华.高级英语写作[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
中国大百科全书总编委会.中国大百科全书（第二版）[Z].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,2009.
周国强.高级英语写作教程[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2004.
邹申.写作教程(第2版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.