语篇连贯：言语行为模式
摘要
语篇连贯是语篇分析中的一个重要概念,也是语言学研究的热门课题。由于连贯概念本身的复杂性,目前语言学界对连贯阐释与理解尚无形成系统的标准和方法。自从二十世纪七、八十年代 Halliday 和 Hasan 提出语篇的衔接理论以来,不少语言学家和学者对他们的连贯是在衔接的基础上形成的观点提出了质疑和批评。其中,有的认为衔接既不是实现连贯的必要条件,也不是实现连贯的充分条件;语篇的连贯不依赖语篇的标记形式,而是依赖于一种假设,即听者或读者假设语篇是连贯的。有的认为衔接指的是语篇命题之间的发展关系,连贯则指的是言外行为之间的关系。还有的认为连贯不在于外在语篇的连贯,而是内在语篇的心理连贯,也就是说是一个交际双方心理互动或协调的过程。在我们看来,这些不同观点有其合理性的一面,但又带有一定的片面性。其实,连贯是一个多层次性的概念。它既可以体现于语义层面,以有形的衔接手段或命题之间的发展关系为连贯表现形式;又可以体现于语用层面,以隐形的言外之义或会话含义的联系为连贯的表现形式;还可以体现于交际双方的心理互动层面,以无形的心理互动形式为语篇的产生和接受的过程和手段为连贯的表现形式。可以说,连贯是指交际双方所实施的一定言语行为的话语在语篇中体现出来的有形、隐形和无形的意义关系。因此,这三个层面上的连贯形式完全可以纳入言语行为理论的框架内进行分析和研究。
第一章提出了目前有关语篇连贯的不同理论和观点、本文研究的目的及其方法。第二章首先对 Austin 言语行为理论的起源、意义以及 Searle 等人对该理论的修正和发展作了重点阐述。它包括:(1)言语行为理论的基本观点,即语言研究的对象不应该是词和句子,而是通过词和句子所完成的行为;任何一个言语行为都是由三个次行为构成的,它们分别是言内行为、言外行为和言后行为。(2)言语行为理论的基本概念。如:合适条件、意向和间接言语行为。(3)言语行为理论在语篇分析中的应用。其次,本文阐释了有关语篇的重要概念,它包括语篇的定义、语篇的功能、语篇的性质以及语境在语言交际中的作用和意义。最后
viii
介绍并讨论了西方语言学家和有关学者对语篇连贯的概念、性质及其特点提出的
不同理论和观点。
通过对言语行为理论、语篇连贯的不同理论与观点的全面概述和讨论,本文
在第三章提出了语篇连贯的言语行为理论模式。该模式首先把语篇视为一个完整
的言语行为,然后从其三个次行为,即言内行为、言外行为和言后行为的层面上
界定并分析了连贯的特点、机制、认知关系及其它们之间的逻辑关系。本文认为,
在语篇的言内行为、言外行为和言后行为层面上其连贯特点是不一样的,分别表
现为“有形”、“隐形”和“无形”。这些特点的形成主要是由语篇内部与外部
的不同连贯机制所决定的。其次从认知角度来看,该理论模式中的语篇连贯具有
整体性、互依性和有效性的理解过程。连贯的整体性指的是这三个层面上的连贯
是一个不可分割的整体,因为它们都属于同一个言语行为中的不同方面;互依性
指的是听者或读者对连贯的推导一般是从言内行为的有形连贯到言外行为的隐
形连贯再到言后行为的无形连贯;有效性是指听者或读者可根据一定的情景语
境、社会文化规约等因素可直接发现语篇某一层面上的连贯,而不需要按照其顺
序逐步加以解释。在这三个层面上,它们之间的逻辑关系是互为条件的蕴涵关系,
也就是说它们的关系是双向内含而非单向内含的。
为了对言内行为、言外行为和言后行为层面上的连贯进行深入细致的解释和
描述,本文从第四章到第六章分别讨论了这三个层面上的连贯机制和特征。在言
内行为层面上,连贯主要是由语言语境内的非结构关系、结构关系和语音衔接等
有形标记所形成的。所谓非结构关系指的是指代、省略、替代、连接、词汇衔接
以及时间衔接手段的语义和语法关系;结构关系强调的是对话中的话题的衔接与
展开,书面语篇中的主题推进。语音衔接手段主要指的是语调衔接和音位衔接。
在言外行为层面上,连贯是通过非语言语境,即情景语境、社会文化语境、共同
背景知识和语言接受者的知识结构在语用推理过程中形成的。这一过程主要是一
个补全语篇的缺失信息和推导言外之义的过程。在言后语言行为层面上,语篇的
连贯是在一定的语言语境和非语言语境中通过话语产生者和接受者双方的心理
互动来实现的,即语言产生者(或语篇)的意向或劝说与语言接受者的理解、接
受或反应来实现的。根据言语行为理论的解释,言后行为是话语在接受者身上所
产生的某种效果或影响。如果说言内行为和言外行为所解释的是语篇与理解之间
Coherence is a key concept of discourse analysis and a research subject ofgeneral interest as well. So far, there has been no systematic and generally acceptedcriterion by which discoursal coherence is explained due to the complexity of theconcept itself. Many linguists and scholars have made some inquiries and criticisms ofthe validity of the view that cohesion is a basic or a necessary condition for coherencein discourse since Halliday & Hasan put forward their theories on discourse cohesionin the 70s and 80s of the 20th century. Some of them hold that the cohesion is not thenecessary condition, nor is it a sufficient condition of discoursal coherence.Coherence in discourse does not rely on the formal signals or markers on the surfacestructure of discourse, rather, it is an assumption of the receiver. In other words, it isthe hearer (or reader) who presumes that a discourse is coherent. Some scholarsregard cohesion as a propositional development of discourse whereas coherence as anillocutionary development of discourse. And others argue that coherence does not liein the external text, but lies in the process of a mental interaction between thelanguage producer and the receiver. This means that coherence is a psychologicallyinteractive or negotiating process of the interlocutors. However, the present studypoints out that these different views on coherence in discourse are rational, but, tosome extent, they focus on one aspect of discoursal coherence. In fact, coherence is amulti-level notion. It is realized not only at the semantic level, that is, it is establishedthrough cohesive devices and propositional development, but also at the pragmaticlevel, which is often achieved through the illocutions or implicatures of discourse inlinguistic communication on certain occasions, and at the level of interlocutors’
interaction at which coherence is considered as a process of mental interactionbetween the producer and the receiver. This study defines the notion of coherence asexplicit, implicit and interactive meaning relations realized through language users’utterances which perform certain speech acts in discourse. Therefore, coherence atthese three levels can be studied and analyzed within the framework of speech acts. Inorder to achieve a full understanding and offer a comprehensive interpretation ofdiscoursal coherence, the thesis is intended to formulate a speech act model ofdiscoursal coherence, which enables us to discuss and account for coherence withinthe framework of speech acts.
In Chapter One the thesis presents the current different views on discoursalcoherence at issue, the objectives of the present study and its methodology. And inChapter Two, the part of literature review, it first makes an overview of speech acttheory proposed by J.L. Austin and its revision and development made by J.R. Searle.It includes: (1) the tenet of speech act theory, which assumes that words or sentencesare used to do thing rather than say thing; and a speech act as a whole can bedecomposed into three sub-cats, say, locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary; (2)the fundamental notions of speech act theory such as felicity conditions, intentionality,and indirect speech acts; (3) the application of speech act theory in discourse analysis.Then, it elaborates on some essential concepts and definitions of discourse analysis,namely, definitions of discourse, functions of discourse, properties of discourse, andtheir roles in linguistic communication. Finally, it introduces and discusses thedifferent theories or views on coherence in discourse concerning the notions and theproperties of coherence.
Through an overview and elaboration on speech act theory as well as those viewsabout discoursal coherence, the thesis, in Chapter Three, proposes a speech act model
of coherence in discourse. This model in general treats a discourse as an integratedspeech act, and then presents, in brief, its features, mechanisms and cognitiverelations of coherence respectively at the levels of locutions, illocutions andperlocutions and the entailment
第一章提出了目前有关语篇连贯的不同理论和观点、本文研究的目的及其方法。第二章首先对 Austin 言语行为理论的起源、意义以及 Searle 等人对该理论的修正和发展作了重点阐述。它包括:(1)言语行为理论的基本观点,即语言研究的对象不应该是词和句子,而是通过词和句子所完成的行为;任何一个言语行为都是由三个次行为构成的,它们分别是言内行为、言外行为和言后行为。(2)言语行为理论的基本概念。如:合适条件、意向和间接言语行为。(3)言语行为理论在语篇分析中的应用。其次,本文阐释了有关语篇的重要概念,它包括语篇的定义、语篇的功能、语篇的性质以及语境在语言交际中的作用和意义。最后
viii
介绍并讨论了西方语言学家和有关学者对语篇连贯的概念、性质及其特点提出的
不同理论和观点。
通过对言语行为理论、语篇连贯的不同理论与观点的全面概述和讨论,本文
在第三章提出了语篇连贯的言语行为理论模式。该模式首先把语篇视为一个完整
的言语行为,然后从其三个次行为,即言内行为、言外行为和言后行为的层面上
界定并分析了连贯的特点、机制、认知关系及其它们之间的逻辑关系。本文认为,
在语篇的言内行为、言外行为和言后行为层面上其连贯特点是不一样的,分别表
现为“有形”、“隐形”和“无形”。这些特点的形成主要是由语篇内部与外部
的不同连贯机制所决定的。其次从认知角度来看,该理论模式中的语篇连贯具有
整体性、互依性和有效性的理解过程。连贯的整体性指的是这三个层面上的连贯
是一个不可分割的整体,因为它们都属于同一个言语行为中的不同方面;互依性
指的是听者或读者对连贯的推导一般是从言内行为的有形连贯到言外行为的隐
形连贯再到言后行为的无形连贯;有效性是指听者或读者可根据一定的情景语
境、社会文化规约等因素可直接发现语篇某一层面上的连贯,而不需要按照其顺
序逐步加以解释。在这三个层面上,它们之间的逻辑关系是互为条件的蕴涵关系,
也就是说它们的关系是双向内含而非单向内含的。
为了对言内行为、言外行为和言后行为层面上的连贯进行深入细致的解释和
描述,本文从第四章到第六章分别讨论了这三个层面上的连贯机制和特征。在言
内行为层面上,连贯主要是由语言语境内的非结构关系、结构关系和语音衔接等
有形标记所形成的。所谓非结构关系指的是指代、省略、替代、连接、词汇衔接
以及时间衔接手段的语义和语法关系;结构关系强调的是对话中的话题的衔接与
展开,书面语篇中的主题推进。语音衔接手段主要指的是语调衔接和音位衔接。
在言外行为层面上,连贯是通过非语言语境,即情景语境、社会文化语境、共同
背景知识和语言接受者的知识结构在语用推理过程中形成的。这一过程主要是一
个补全语篇的缺失信息和推导言外之义的过程。在言后语言行为层面上,语篇的
连贯是在一定的语言语境和非语言语境中通过话语产生者和接受者双方的心理
互动来实现的,即语言产生者(或语篇)的意向或劝说与语言接受者的理解、接
受或反应来实现的。根据言语行为理论的解释,言后行为是话语在接受者身上所
产生的某种效果或影响。如果说言内行为和言外行为所解释的是语篇与理解之间
Coherence is a key concept of discourse analysis and a research subject ofgeneral interest as well. So far, there has been no systematic and generally acceptedcriterion by which discoursal coherence is explained due to the complexity of theconcept itself. Many linguists and scholars have made some inquiries and criticisms ofthe validity of the view that cohesion is a basic or a necessary condition for coherencein discourse since Halliday & Hasan put forward their theories on discourse cohesionin the 70s and 80s of the 20th century. Some of them hold that the cohesion is not thenecessary condition, nor is it a sufficient condition of discoursal coherence.Coherence in discourse does not rely on the formal signals or markers on the surfacestructure of discourse, rather, it is an assumption of the receiver. In other words, it isthe hearer (or reader) who presumes that a discourse is coherent. Some scholarsregard cohesion as a propositional development of discourse whereas coherence as anillocutionary development of discourse. And others argue that coherence does not liein the external text, but lies in the process of a mental interaction between thelanguage producer and the receiver. This means that coherence is a psychologicallyinteractive or negotiating process of the interlocutors. However, the present studypoints out that these different views on coherence in discourse are rational, but, tosome extent, they focus on one aspect of discoursal coherence. In fact, coherence is amulti-level notion. It is realized not only at the semantic level, that is, it is establishedthrough cohesive devices and propositional development, but also at the pragmaticlevel, which is often achieved through the illocutions or implicatures of discourse inlinguistic communication on certain occasions, and at the level of interlocutors’
interaction at which coherence is considered as a process of mental interactionbetween the producer and the receiver. This study defines the notion of coherence asexplicit, implicit and interactive meaning relations realized through language users’utterances which perform certain speech acts in discourse. Therefore, coherence atthese three levels can be studied and analyzed within the framework of speech acts. Inorder to achieve a full understanding and offer a comprehensive interpretation ofdiscoursal coherence, the thesis is intended to formulate a speech act model ofdiscoursal coherence, which enables us to discuss and account for coherence withinthe framework of speech acts.
In Chapter One the thesis presents the current different views on discoursalcoherence at issue, the objectives of the present study and its methodology. And inChapter Two, the part of literature review, it first makes an overview of speech acttheory proposed by J.L. Austin and its revision and development made by J.R. Searle.It includes: (1) the tenet of speech act theory, which assumes that words or sentencesare used to do thing rather than say thing; and a speech act as a whole can bedecomposed into three sub-cats, say, locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary; (2)the fundamental notions of speech act theory such as felicity conditions, intentionality,and indirect speech acts; (3) the application of speech act theory in discourse analysis.Then, it elaborates on some essential concepts and definitions of discourse analysis,namely, definitions of discourse, functions of discourse, properties of discourse, andtheir roles in linguistic communication. Finally, it introduces and discusses thedifferent theories or views on coherence in discourse concerning the notions and theproperties of coherence.
Through an overview and elaboration on speech act theory as well as those viewsabout discoursal coherence, the thesis, in Chapter Three, proposes a speech act model
of coherence in discourse. This model in general treats a discourse as an integratedspeech act, and then presents, in brief, its features, mechanisms and cognitiverelations of coherence respectively at the levels of locutions, illocutions andperlocutions and the entailment
引文
Abelson, R.P. 1976. Script Processing in Attitude Formation and Decision-making [A]. In J. S. Carrol & J. W. Payne (eds.). Cognition and Behavior [C]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Press.
Anderson, J.R. 1981. Concepts, Propositions, and Schemata: What Are the Cognitive Units? [A]. In J. Flower (ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation [C]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, vol. 28, pp. 121-162.
Anderson, A.H. 1995. Negotiating Coherence in Dialogue [A]. In Gernsbacher, M.A. & T. Givón (eds.). Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.1-40.
Aristotle. 1952a. [Rhetorica]. Translated by W.R. Roberts. In W.D. Ross (ed.). The Works of Aristotle [C]. Vol. 11: Rhetorica, De rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Poetica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aristotle. 1952b. [Poetics]. Translated by W.R. Roberts. In W.D. Ross (ed.). The Works of Aristotle [C]. Vol. 11: Rhetorica, De rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Poetica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Austin, J.L. 1979. A Plea for Excuse [A]. In Philosophical Papers, (the third edition) [C]. Oxford: OUP.
Bach, K., & Hanish, R. M. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Act [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barr, A., & E.A. Freigenbaum. 1981. The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (3 Vols.) [M]. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufman.
Bahtia, V.K. 1993. Analysis Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M]. London: Longman.
Bartlett, F.C. 1932. Remembering [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Beardsley, M.C.1962, The Metaphorical Twist [J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 22: pp.293-370.
de Beaugrande, R. 1980. Text, Discourse and Process [M]. London: Longman
de Beaugrande, R.,& W.Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London: Longman. Bhatia, V.K. 1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Setting [M]. Longman Group UK Limited.
Bauman, R.& J. Sherzer. 1974. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Bauman, R. 1974. Speaking in the Light: the Role of the Quaker Minister [A]. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.144-61.
Bender, J.W. (ed.). 1989. The Current States of Coherence Theory [C].Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Black, M. 1962. Metaphor [A]. In M. Black (ed.). Models and Metaphors [C]. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Blakemore, D. L. 1987. Semantic Constrains on Relevance [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. L. 1988. The Organization of Discourse [A]. In F. Newmeyer (ed.). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp 299-350.
Blakemore, D. L. 1992. Understanding Utterances [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 221
Blakemore, D. L. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Blass, R. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special References to Sissala [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Bókay, A. 1989. Understanding, Text, and Coherence [A]. In M. Conte & J.S. Pet?fi & E. S?zer (eds.). Text and Discourse Connectedness [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brazil, D.C. 1975. Discourse Intonation [A]. Discourse Analysis Monographs I. University of Birmingham, English Language Research, Mimeo.
Brazil, D.C. 1978. Discourse Intonation [A]. Discourse Analysis Monographs II. University of Birmingham, English Language Research, Mimeo.
Brazil, D.C., R.M. Coulthard & C.M. Johons. 1980. Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching [M]. London: Longman.
Bolinger, D. 1989. Intonation and Its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse [M]. Stanford University Press.
Bonvillain, N. 1997. Language, Culture, and Communication [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1978. Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena [A]. In E. Goody (ed.). Questions and Politeness [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.56-311.
Bublitz, W., U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). 1999.Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse:How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bublitz, W. 1999. Introduction: Views of Coherence [A]. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.1-7.
Burke, J.A. 1986. Interacting Plans in the Accomplishment of a Practical Activity [A]. In D.G. Ellis & W.A. Donohue (eds.). Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes [C]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp.203-222.
Bühler, K. 1934. Sorachtheorie: die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [M]. Jana: Fischer verlag.
Brown, G., K. L. Currie, & J. Kenworthy. 1980. Question of Intonation [M]. London: Croom Helm.
Caplin, R., 1967. Advertising [M]. London: Business Publications Ltd.
Campbell, G. 1977. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [A]. In L.F. Bitzer (ed.).(1988) Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Candida Jaci de Sousa Melo, 2002. Possible directions of fit between mind, language and the world [A]. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 109-117.
Carnap, R. 1956. Meaning and Necessity [M]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Carter, R. & P. Simpson. (eds.). 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics [C]. London: Unwin Hyman.
Charniak, E. 1975. Organisation and Inference in a Framelike system of Common Sense Knowledge [A]. In R. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (eds.). Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing [C]. An Interdisciplinary Workshop, Cambridge, MA.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Charniak, E. 1979. Ms Malaprop, A Language Comprehension Program [A]. In D. Metzing (ed.). Frame Conception of Prose and Its Effects on Memory [C]. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Cherry, R. 1990. Politeness in Written Persuasion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics.
Clark, H.H. 1979. Response to indirect speech acts [A]. Cognitive Psychology [C]. Academic Press, 11: pp. 430-477. Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, pp.199-230.
Clark, J. & C. Yallop, 2000. An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Clocksin,W.F. & C.S. Mellish, 1981. Progressing in Prolog [M]. Berlin: Springer.
Coates, J., 1995. The Negotiation of Coherence in Face-to-face Interaction: Some Examples From the Extreme Bounds [A]. In M.A. Gersbacher & T. Givón (eds.). Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C], (TSL vol. 31). John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.41-58.
Cohen, P.R., & Perrault, C.R. 1979. Elements of a Plan-based Theory of Speech Acts [J]. Cognitive Science, 3: pp. 177-212.
Cole, P. 1975. The Synchronic and Diachronic Status of Conversational Implicarture [A]. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics [C]. (Vol. 3: Speech Acts). New York: Academic Press.
Coleridge, S. 1967. Biographia Letteraria [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Cook, G. 1990a. Transcribing Infinity: Problem of Context Presentation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 14/1: pp. 1-24.
Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Corbett, E.P.J. & R.J. Connors. 1999. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student [M]. (The fourth edition). Oxford : OUP.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1983. Investigating English Style [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Corke, A. 1986. Advertising And Public Relations: For executive Who Want to Acquire Essential New Management Skills to Develop Their Careers [M]. London: Pan Books.
Coulthard, R. M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Longman.
Coulthard, R.M. & D.C. Brazil. 1979. Exchanges Structure [A]. In Discourse Analysis Monographs [C], (Vol. 5.). Birmingham: Birmingham University. Reprinted in Coulthard, R.M. & M. Montgomery (eds.). 1981, Studies in Discourse Analysis [C]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.82-106.
Coulthard, R.M. & D.C. Brazil. 1981. Aspects of the Theory of Discourse [A]. In Couthard, R. M., & M. Montgomery. (eds.). Studies in Discourse Analysis [C]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Crombie, W. 1985. Process and Relation in Discourse and Language learning [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Sinclair, J. McH., & R.M. Coulthard 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1975. Advanced Conversation English [M]. London: Longman.
Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1983. Investigating English Style [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Crombie, W.1985. Process and Relation in Discourse and Language Learning [M].Oxford: OUP.
Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Davis, S. (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP.
Davis, W. A. 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Danes, F. 1974. Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of Text [A]. In F. Dane?(ed.). Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. Prague: Academia.
Dascal, M. 1981. Contextualism [A]. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa, & J. Verschueren (eds.). Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 153-79.
Davidson, D.1979. What Metaphors Mean [A]. In Sacks, S. (ed.). On Metaphor [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 29-46.
van Dijk, T.A. 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, T. A.(ed.) 1976. Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
van Dijk, T. A. 1976. Pragmatics and Poetics [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp.23-57.
van Dijk, T.A. 1977. Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse [M]. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T.A., 1978. The Structures and Functions of Discourse: Interdisciplinary Introduction into Textlinguistics and Discourse Studies [M]. Puerto Rico Lectures.
van Dijk, T.A. 1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction and Cognition [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
van Dijk, T. A. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, T.A. 1982. Opinions and attitudes in discourse comprehension [A]. In Le Ny, J.F. Kintsch, W. (eds.). Language and Comprehension [C]. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland, pp.35-51.
van Dijk, T.A. 1985. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Vol. 1-2. New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A.& W. Kintsch.1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension [M]. New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A. 1985. Introduction: Discourse Analysis As a New Cross-discipline [A]. In T. A. van Dijk. (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse. New York: Academic Press, pp.1-10.
Duranti, A. & C. Goodwin. (eds.). 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as An Interactive Phenomenon [C]. Cambridge: CUP.
Dyer, G.1982. Advertising as Communication [M]. London: Methuen.
Edmondson, W. 1981. Spoken Discourse : A Model for Analysis [M]. London: Longman.
Edmondson, W. 1999. If coherence Is Achieved, Then Where Doth Meaning Lie? [A]. In Bublitz, W., U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse:How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 251-265.
Edwards, A.D. 1976. Language in Culture and Class [M]. London: Heinnemann Educational Books Ltd.
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic functional Linguistics [M]. London: Pinter.
Ehrlich, S. 1990. Point of View: A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style [M]. London: Routledge.
Enkvist, N. E. 1964. On Defining Style [A]. In M. J. Gregory (ed.). Linguistics and Style [C]. London: OUP.
Enkivist, N.E. 1977. Coherence, Pseudo-coherence and Non-coherence [A]. In J.O.OSTMAN (ed.).Cohesion and Semantics [C]. Abo: Abo Akademi Foundation.
Enkvist, N. E. 1985. Text and Discourse Linguistics, Rhetoric, and stylistics [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Discourse and Literature [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.11-36.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. Is Sybil There? The Structure of American English Directives [J]. Language in Society, 5: pp. 25-66.
Firth, J.R. 1935. On Sociological Linguistics [A]. In D. Hymes (ed.). Language in Culture and Society [C]. Harper & Row 1964, pp.7-64.
Firth, J.R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics [M]. (1934-1951) Oxford: OUP.
Fish, S. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fishman, J. (ed.) 1971. Advances in the Sociology of Language [C]. Mouton, pp. 8-61.
Fodor, J. A. 1975. The Language of Thought [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fogelin, R. J. 1988. Figuratively Speaking [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Follert, V. 1986. Appositions in Plans and Scripts: An Application to Initial Interactions [A]. In D G Ellis, & W. A. (eds.). Donohue Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes [C]. Hillsdale and N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 249/253.
Fowler, R. 1966. Linguistic Theory and the Study of Literature [A]. In R. Fowler (ed.). Essays on Style and Language [C]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Frege, G. 1879. Selections From Begriffsschrift, in Translations From the Philosophical Writings of Goottlob Frege [A]. (ed.) and (trans.). P. Geach & M. Black. 1952. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fries, P. 1983. On the Status of Theme in English [A]. In S.P. Janos, & E. Sozer (eds.). Micro-and Macro-connexity of discourse [C]. Hamburg: Buske.
Freund, E. 1987 The Return of the Reader: Reader-response Criticism [M]. London: Methuen.
Gee, J.P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Routledge.
Geluykens, R. 1997. It Takes Two to Cohere: the Collaborative Dimension of Topical Coherence ni Conversation [A]. In W. Bublitz, Utalenk & E. Ventola (eds.). Coherence in spoken and written discourse [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 35-53.
Givó n,T., 1995. Coherence in Text vs. Coherence in Mind [A]. In M.A. Gersbacher & T. Givón (eds.). Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C], (TSL. vol.31). John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.59-115.
Goffman, E. 1976. Replies and Responses [J]. Language in Society. 5: pp. 257-313.
Goffman, E.,1979. Forms of Talk [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goffman, E. 1981a. Introduction. In Forms of Talk [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 1-4.
Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning [J]. Philosophical Review, 66: pp.377-388.
Grice, H.P. 1968. Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning [J]. Foundations of Language. Harvard University Press, 4: pp.225-242. (Reprinted In S. Davis (ed.) 1991.Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, pp.65-96.)
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole & J.L Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics [C]. Vol,3: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58. (Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, pp.305-315.)
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Reprinted in 2002 by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing.
Grosz, B. 1981. Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogues [A]. In A. Joshi, B. Webber & I. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.84-105.
Gülich, E. & W. Raible. 1977. Linguistische Textmodelle [M]. München: Fink.
Gumperz, J.J. & D. Hymes. 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gumperz, J.J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Gumperz, J.J. 1982b. Language and Social Identity [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Haack, S. 1993. Evidence and inquiry: towards reconstruction in epistemology [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967-8. Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English [J]. Journal of Linguistic, 1-3: pp.37-81, 199-244.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotics: The Socil Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. Edward Arnold Publisher Limited.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. English Intonation as a Resource for Discourse [J]. Beitr?ge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 48 (Festschrift in Honour of Arthur Delbridge).
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985b. Dimensions of Diacourse Analysis: Grammar [A]. In T.A. van Djik (ed.).Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C], vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse. London: Academic Press, pp.29-55.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language As a Socio-semantics Perspective [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View: principles of Reasoning [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harris, Z. 1952. Discourse Analysis [J]. Language, 28: pp. 1-30.
Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony [A]. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding Reading Comprehension [C]. Delaware: International Reading Association, pp: 181-219.
Hawkes, T.1984. Metaphor [M]. London: Methuen.
Hayes, P.J. 1979 The Logic of Frames [A]. In D. Metzing (ed.). Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding [C]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hirst, G., 1981. Anaphora in natural language understanding: a survey [M]. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
Hobbs, J.R.1979. Coherence and Coreferenc [J]. Cognitive Science, 3: 67-90.
Hockett. C. F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics [M]. New York: Macmillan. 226
Hoey, M.P. 1991a. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Hoey, M.P. 1991b. Another Perspective on Coherence and Cohesive Harmony [A]. In Ventola, E. (ed.). Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.385-414.
Hoey, M.P.2001. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Routledge.
Holmes, J. 1989. Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative Competence [J]. Applied Linguistics, 10: pp.194-213.
Holmes, J.1990. Apologies in New Zealand English [J]. Language in Society, 19(2): pp.155-200.
Horn, L.R. 1984. Towards a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature [A]. In D. Schiffrin (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics [C]. Washington. D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp.11-42.
Hudson, R.A. 1980. Sociolinguistics [M].Cambridge: CUP.
Hymes, D. (ed.) 1964. Language in Culture and Society [C]. New York: Harper & Row.
Hymes, D. 1972. Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life[A]. In J.J. Gumperz & D.Hymes (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp.35-71.
Ingarden, R. 1973. The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic and the Theory of Literature [M]. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
Iser, W. 1974. The Implied Reader: Patterns of communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett[M]. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Iser, W. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response [M]. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language [C]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp.350-77.
Jackson, S. 1983. Contributions of Rule Knowledge and World Knowledge to Inferences about Beliefs and Intentions [A]. Paper presented at the University of Kansas Conference on Social Cognition and Interpersonal Behavior, Lawrence, Kansas.
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2004. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse [M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Keenan, E. L. 1971. Two Kinds of Presupposition in Natural Language [A]. In C.J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Semantics [C]. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, pp.45-54.
Kelman, H. G. 1958. Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change [J]. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: pp. 51-60.
Kempson, R. M. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Kernighan, B.W. & J.M. Ritchie. 1978. The C programming language [M]. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kim, K. L. 1996, Caged in Out Own Signs [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Krekel, M. 1981. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse [M]. London: Academic Press.
Labov, W. 1972a, Sociolinguistic Patterns [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. 1972b. Language in the Inner City [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Labov, W. 1972e. Rules for Ritual Insults [A]. In Sudnow, D. (ed.). Studies in Social Interaction [C]. New York: Free Press, pp. 120-169.
Labov, W. 1972f. The study of language in its social context [A]. In P. Giglioli (ed.). Language and Social Context [C]. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp.157-217.
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Lakoff, R. 1973. The Logic and Politeness: or Minding Your P’s And R’s [A]. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago, pp. 292-305.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphor We Live By [M]. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Leavis, F.R. & D. Thompson. 1933. Culture and Environment [M]. London: Chatto & Windus.
Leech, G., 1966. English in Advertising [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N. 1969. A linguistic Guide to English Poetry [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N. 1974. Semantics [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Leech, G. N. 1980. Exploration in Semantics and Pragmatics [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N. 1985. Stylistics [A]. In van Dijk, T.A.(ed.). Discourse and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp 39-57.
Leech, G.N. & M.H. Short. 1981. Style in Fiction [M]. London: Longman.
Lehrer, K. 1990. Theory of Knowledge [M]. Boulder: Wetview.
Levin S.R. 1976. Concerning What Kind of Speech Act a Poem Is [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp.141-160.
Levinson, S. E. 1981. The Essential Inadequacies of Speech Act Models of Dialogue [A]. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa, & J. Verschueren (eds.). Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp. 183-210.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Lewis, D. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study [M]. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Linde, C & W. Labov. 1975. Spatial Networks as a Site for the Study of Language and Thought [J]. Language, 51: pp. 924-39.
Linde, C & J. Goguen 1978. The Structure of Planning Discourse [J]. Journal pf Social and Biological Structure, 1: pp.219-51.
Lock, J. 1990. An essay Concerning Human Understanding [A]. In P. H. Nidditch (ed.). Oxford: OUP.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Malinowski, B. 1935, Coral Gardens and Their Magic [M] (vol. 2). London: Allen & Unwin. Republished in 1965 by Indiana University Press.
Martin, J.R. 1984. Language, Register and Genre [A]. In F. Christie (ed.). Children Writing: reader [C]. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, M.J. 1988. Some Vocabulary Patterns in Conversation [A]. In R.A. Carter & M.J. McCarthy 228 (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching [C]. London: Longman.
McCarthy, M.J. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
McGuire, W.J. 1968. Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence [A]. In E.F. Borgatta & W.W. Lambert (eds.). Handbook of Personality Theory and Research [C]. Chicago: Rand McNally.
McTear, M 1987. The articulate Computer [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Merritt, M. 1976. On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters [J]. Language in Society, 5: pp. 315-57.
Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K.H. 1960. Plans and the Structure of Behavior [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Minsky, M.L. 1975. A Framework for Representing Knowledge [A]. In P. Winston (ed.). The Psychology of Computer Vision [C]. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211-27.
Morgan, J.L. 1978. Two types of convention in direct speech acts [A]. In P. Cole (ed.). Pragmatics. In Syntax and Semantics [C], vol. 9: pp.261-280.
Nash, W.1989. Rhetoric: The wit of persuasion [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Naomi & A. Kasher. 1976. Speech Acts, Context and Valuable Ambiguities [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature[C]. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., pp.77-81.
Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.Ohmann, R., 1971b. Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature [J]. In Philosophy and rhetoric, 4: pp.1-19.
Ohmann, R., 1972. Speech, Literature, and the Space Between [J]. New literary history, 4: pp. 47-63.
Ohmann, R, 1973. Literature as Act [A]. In S. Chatman (ed.). Approaches to Poetics [C]. New York and London: Columbia University Press, pp. 81-107.
Ostman, J.O. 1999. Coherence Through Understanding Through Discourse Patterns: Focus on News Report [A]. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.77-99.
Packard, V. 1981. The Hidden Persuaders [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Papegaail, B. & Klaus Schubert, 1988. Text Coherence in Translation [M]. USA: Foris Publications.
Philips, M. 1985. Aspects of Text Structure: an investigation of the lexical organization of text [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Pike, K.L. 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Planalp, S. 1986. Script, Story Grammars, and Causal Schemas [A]. In G. Ellis & W.A. Donohue (eds.). Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes [C]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Plett, H. F. 1985. Rhetoric [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Discourse and Literature [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 59-84.
Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach [M]. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Pufahl, I. 1988. How to Assign Work in an Office: A Comparison of Spoken and Written Directives in American English [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 10: pp. 673-92.
Quintilian. 1920-22. Institutio Oratoria [M]. (Trans. Butler, H.E. 4 vols.) Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Recanati, F. 1989. The Pragmatics of What Is Said [J]. Mind and Language, 4. Basil Blackwell. Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: OUP, pp. 97-120.
Reinhart, T. 1980. Conditions of Coherence [J]. Poetics Today, 1(4): 61-84.
Ricoeur, P. 1989. Rhetoric— Poetics— Hermeneutics [A]. In M. Meyer (ed.). From Metaphysics to Rhetoric [C]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 137-149.
Riesbeck, C.K. & R.C. Schank. 1978. Comprehension by Computer: Expectation-based Analysis of Sentence in Context [A]. In W.J.M. Levelt & G.B. Flories d’Arcais (eds.). Studies in the Perception of Language [C]. New York: Willey.
Ross, J. 1970. On Declarative Sentence [A]. In R. Jacob & P. Rosenbaum (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar [C]. Lexington, Mass.: Ginn.
Rumelhart, D.E. & Ortony, A. 1977. The Representation of Knowledge in Memory [A]. In R.C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (eds.). Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge [C]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Russell, B. 1905. On Denoting [J]. Mind, 14: pp.479-93.
Russell, B. 1957. Mr. Strawson on Referring [J]. Mind, 66: pp.385-9.
Sacks, H. 1972a. Lecture Notes [A]. School of Social Science [mimeo.], Department of Sociology, University of California at Irvine.
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation [J]. Language, 50/4, pp. 696-735.
Sadock, J.M. 1978. On Testing for Conversational Implicature [A]. In P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semantics [C], 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 282-297.
Sadock, J.M. 1981. Almost [A]. In P. Cole. (ed.). Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp. 257-272.
Salkie, R., 1995. Text and Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Routledge.
Sandell, R. 1977. Linguistic Style and Persuasion [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & L. Noordman. 1992. Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations [J]. Discourse Process, 15: pp.1-35.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & L. Noordman. 1993. Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4: pp. 93-133.
Savas, L. T. (ed.). 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory [C]. London: Routledge.
Saville-Troike, M. 1982. The Ethnography of Communication [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schank, R.C. & R. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Schegloff, E. 1972. Sequencing in Conversational Openings [A]. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 346-80.
Schegloff, E. & H. Sacke. 1973. Opening up Closings [J]. Semiotica, 7 (3/4): pp.289-327.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schmidt, S.J. 1976. Towards a Pragmatic Interpretation of ‘Fictionality’[A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (eds.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co, pp. 161-227.
Searle, J.R. 1965. What is a speech act? [A]. In M. Black (ed.). Philosophy in America [C]. Unwin Hyman, pp. 221-239.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Act: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Act [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R. 1975a. Indirect Speech Acts [A]. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics [C], vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.50-82. (Also in Searle, 1979: pp30-57).
Searle, J. R. 1975b. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts [A]. In K. Gunderson (ed.). Language, Mind and Knowledge [C]. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.344-369.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Act [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R., Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M. (eds.), 1980a. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Searle, J. R. 1980b. The Background of Meaning [A]. In J.R. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch, (eds.). Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 221-232.
Searle, J.R. 1982. Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.92-123. Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.), (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.519-539.
Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R. & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J. R. 1989. How Performatives Work [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: pp. 535-558. In D. Vanderveken & D. Kubo (eds.). (2002) Essays in Speech Act Theory [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 89-107.
Searle, J.R. & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R. 1992. On conversation [A]. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (eds.). On Searle on Conversation [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company..
Seidlhofer, B. & H. Widdowson 1999. Coherence in Summery: The Context of Appropriate Discourse [A]. In Bublitz, W., U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 205-219.
Short, M. 1989. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. In R. Carter & P. Simpson (eds.). Language, Discourse and Literature [C]. London: Unwin Hyman. Pp.145-147.
Schiffrin, D. 1987a .Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Schiffrin, D. !994. Approaches to Discourse [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sinclair, J. & M. Coulthard 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used By Teachers and Pupils [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Singer, M. 1990 Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Sentence and Discourse Processes[M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1981. Irony and the Use-mention Distinction [A]. In P Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp.295-318.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986a. Relevance, Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986b. Loose talk [J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian, 86 (1985-1986), pp.153-171. Reprinted in S. Davis, (ed.). (1991) Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: OUP, pp. 540-549.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986c. Inference and Implicature [A]. In C. Travis (ed.). Meaning and Interpretation [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 45-75.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Strawson, P.F.1950. On Referring [J]. Mind, 59, pp. 315-32.
Strawson, P.F. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.
Strawson, P.F. 1964. Intention and Convention in Speech Acts [J]. Philosophical Review 73, pp.439-60. (Also in Searle (ed.) 1971)
Strawson, P. F. 1974. Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar [M]. London: Methuen.
Stross, B. 1974. Speaking of Speaking: Tenjapa Tzeltal Metalinguistics [A]. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.213-39
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis—English in Academic and Research Settings [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Tanaka, K., 1994. Advertising Language [M]. London: Routledge.
Tannen, D. What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations [A]. In R. Freedle (ed.). New Directions in Discourse Processing [C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing, pp. 137-81.
Thagard, P. 2000. Coherence in Thought and Action [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press
Tsohatzidis, S.L. (ed.) 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory [C]. London: Routledge.
Tyler, S.A. 1978. The Said and the Unsaid [M] New York: Academic Press.
Vanderveken, D. & Kubo, S. (eds.) 2002. Essays in Speech Act Theory [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Vanderveken, D. & Kubo, S. 2002. Introduction. In Vanderveken, D. & S. Kubo (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory (eds.), [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-21.
Vanderveken, D. 2002. Universal grammar and speech act theory [A]. In Vanderveken, D. & S. Kubo (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory (eds.), [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 25-61.
Vanderveken, D. 1999a. La Structure Logique des Dialogues Intelligents [A]. In B. Moulin et al (eds.). Analyse et Simulation de Conversation [C]. L’Interdiscilplinaree, pp. 87-125.
Vanderveken, D. 1997c. La Logique Illocutoire et L’analyse du Discours [A]. In D. Luzzati et al (eds.). Le Dialogue [C]. Paris: Editions Peter Lang, pp. 62-100.
Velde, R.G. van de. 1983. Coherence Relations in Texts and Inferential Processing [A]. In S. Hattori & Inoue, K. (eds.). Proceeding of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists [C]. Tokyo: pp.1040-1044.
Velde, R.G. van de. 1984a Inferences and coherence in text interpretation [A]. In E. S?zer (ed.). Text Connexity, Text Coherence. Aspects, Methods, Results [C]. Hamburg: H. Buske (Papers in Textlinguistics 49), pp. 261-298.
Velde, R.G. van de. 1986. Man, Verbal Text, Inferencing, and Coherence [A]. In W. Heydrich, F. Neubauer, S.J. Pet?fi, & E. S?zer (eds.). Connexity and Coherence.: Analysis of Text and Discourse [C]. Berlin: Waltre de Gruyter, pp.174-214.
Vestergaard, T. & K. Schr?der 1985. The Language of Advertising [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vuchinich, S. 1977. Elements of Cohesion Between Turns in Ordinary Conversation [J]. Seiotica, 20, pp. 229-57.
Walker, R. 1975. Conversational Implicatures [A]. In S. Blackburn (ed.), Meaning Reference, and Necessity: New Studies in Semantics [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 133-181.
Wales, K. 1989. A Dictionary of Stylistics [M]. London: Longman.
Warnock, G. J. 1973. Some Types of Performative Utterance [A]. In I. Berlin (ed.). Essays on J.L. Austin [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.68-89.
Werlich, E. 1982. A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.
Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Widdowson, H.G. 1979. Explorations in Applied Linguistics [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 1988b Representation and Relevance [A]. In R. Kepson (ed.). Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 133-53.
Winter, E.O. 1979. Replacement as a Fundamental Function of the Sentence in Context [J]. Forum Linguisticum 4/2: 95-133.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: OUP.
陈海庆,1991,《麦克白》中的修辞手段极其艺术效果 [J],《山东外语教学》第 1 期。
陈海庆,2003,英语语调的语用功能极其韵律结构 [A],载 扬忠、张绍杰《语篇、认知、功能》[C]。 吉林人民出版社。
陈海庆、张绍杰,2003,《含义:意向、规约和原则在格赖斯理论解释中的失败》( 1998)评介 [J], 《外语教学与研究》第 3 期。
陈海庆、张绍杰,2004,语篇连贯:言语行为理论视角 [J],《外语教学与研究》第 6 期。
程雨民,1986,英语使用中的表面不连贯[J],《外国语》第 4 期。
顾曰国,1989,奥斯汀的言语行为理论:诠释与批判 [J],《外语教学与研究》第 1 期。
桂诗春,1985,《心理语言学》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
何自然,1986,《语用学概论》[M]。长沙:湖南教育出版社。
何自然、冉永平,2001,《语用与认知——关联理论研究》[C]。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
何兆熊 等,1999,《新编语义学概要》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1992,《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2000,《功能主义纵横谈》[M]。北京:外语教育与研究出版社。
黄国文,1988,《语篇分析概论》[M]。长沙:湖南教育出版社。
黄国文,2001,《语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
黄 衍,1985,试论英语主位与述位[J],《外国语》第 4 期。
林纪诚,1988,试论语篇连贯的条件[J],《现代外语》第 4 期。
林纪诚,1989,语义连贯的语义模式[J],《外语教学》第 2 期。
秦秀白,2002,《英语语体和文体要略》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
沈家煊,1990,语用学和语义学的分界[J],《外语教学与研究》第 2 期。
沈家煊,1997,语用?认知?言外义[J],《外语教学与研究》第 4 期。
武 果,1987,也谈篇章的连贯性[J],《现代外语》第 4 期。
王佐良、丁望道,1987,《英语文体学引论》[M]。北京:外语教育与研究出版社。
王宗炎,1994,“序”,《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M]。(胡壮麟 著).上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王守元,2000,《英语文体学要略》[M]。济南:山东大学出版社。
徐盛桓,1991,语用推理[J],《外语学刊》,第 6 期。
徐盛桓,1993a,新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J],《外国语》第 1 期。
徐盛桓,1993b,会话含意理论的新发展[J],《现代外语》第 2 期。
徐盛桓,1993c,论常规关系[J],《外国语》第 6 期。
徐盛桓,2002,常规关系与认知化[J],《外国语》第 1 期。
杨 忠、张绍杰,《语篇?功能?认知》[C]。长春:吉林人民出版社。
扬玉成,2002,《奥斯汀:语言现象学与哲学》[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
姚小平,1998,《洪堡特——人文研究和语言研究》[M]。北京:外语教学与外语研究出版社。
张建理,1998,连贯研究概览[J],《外语教学与研究》第 4 期。
张建理,2000,论语篇连贯机制[J],《浙江大学学报》(人文社科版)第 6 期。
张绍杰,2001,《表述和意义:言语行为研究》导读 (John Searle 著)。北京:外语教育与研究出版社,剑桥大学出版社。
张绍杰,1994,言语行为与施为动词[J],《外语与外语教学》第 6 期。
张德禄,1999,语篇连贯纵横谈[J],《外国语》第 6 期。
张德禄,2000,论语篇连贯[J],《外语教学与研究》第 2 期。
张德禄、刘洪民,1994,主位结构与语篇连贯[J],《外语研究》第 3 期。
朱永生,1995,衔接理论的发展与完善[J],《外国语》第 3 期。
朱永生,1996,语篇连贯的内部条件(上)[J],《现代外语》第 4 期。
朱永生,1997a,语篇连贯的内部条件(下)[J],《现代外语》第 1 期。
朱永生,1997b,Halliday 的语篇连贯标准:外界的误解与自身的不足[J],《外语教学与研究》第 1 期。
朱永生、严世清,2002,《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Anderson, J.R. 1981. Concepts, Propositions, and Schemata: What Are the Cognitive Units? [A]. In J. Flower (ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation [C]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, vol. 28, pp. 121-162.
Anderson, A.H. 1995. Negotiating Coherence in Dialogue [A]. In Gernsbacher, M.A. & T. Givón (eds.). Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.1-40.
Aristotle. 1952a. [Rhetorica]. Translated by W.R. Roberts. In W.D. Ross (ed.). The Works of Aristotle [C]. Vol. 11: Rhetorica, De rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Poetica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aristotle. 1952b. [Poetics]. Translated by W.R. Roberts. In W.D. Ross (ed.). The Works of Aristotle [C]. Vol. 11: Rhetorica, De rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Poetica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Austin, J.L. 1979. A Plea for Excuse [A]. In Philosophical Papers, (the third edition) [C]. Oxford: OUP.
Bach, K., & Hanish, R. M. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Act [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barr, A., & E.A. Freigenbaum. 1981. The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (3 Vols.) [M]. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufman.
Bahtia, V.K. 1993. Analysis Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M]. London: Longman.
Bartlett, F.C. 1932. Remembering [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Beardsley, M.C.1962, The Metaphorical Twist [J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 22: pp.293-370.
de Beaugrande, R. 1980. Text, Discourse and Process [M]. London: Longman
de Beaugrande, R.,& W.Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London: Longman. Bhatia, V.K. 1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Setting [M]. Longman Group UK Limited.
Bauman, R.& J. Sherzer. 1974. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Bauman, R. 1974. Speaking in the Light: the Role of the Quaker Minister [A]. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.144-61.
Bender, J.W. (ed.). 1989. The Current States of Coherence Theory [C].Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Black, M. 1962. Metaphor [A]. In M. Black (ed.). Models and Metaphors [C]. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Blakemore, D. L. 1987. Semantic Constrains on Relevance [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. L. 1988. The Organization of Discourse [A]. In F. Newmeyer (ed.). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp 299-350.
Blakemore, D. L. 1992. Understanding Utterances [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 221
Blakemore, D. L. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Blass, R. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special References to Sissala [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Bókay, A. 1989. Understanding, Text, and Coherence [A]. In M. Conte & J.S. Pet?fi & E. S?zer (eds.). Text and Discourse Connectedness [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brazil, D.C. 1975. Discourse Intonation [A]. Discourse Analysis Monographs I. University of Birmingham, English Language Research, Mimeo.
Brazil, D.C. 1978. Discourse Intonation [A]. Discourse Analysis Monographs II. University of Birmingham, English Language Research, Mimeo.
Brazil, D.C., R.M. Coulthard & C.M. Johons. 1980. Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching [M]. London: Longman.
Bolinger, D. 1989. Intonation and Its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse [M]. Stanford University Press.
Bonvillain, N. 1997. Language, Culture, and Communication [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1978. Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena [A]. In E. Goody (ed.). Questions and Politeness [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.56-311.
Bublitz, W., U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). 1999.Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse:How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bublitz, W. 1999. Introduction: Views of Coherence [A]. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.1-7.
Burke, J.A. 1986. Interacting Plans in the Accomplishment of a Practical Activity [A]. In D.G. Ellis & W.A. Donohue (eds.). Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes [C]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp.203-222.
Bühler, K. 1934. Sorachtheorie: die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [M]. Jana: Fischer verlag.
Brown, G., K. L. Currie, & J. Kenworthy. 1980. Question of Intonation [M]. London: Croom Helm.
Caplin, R., 1967. Advertising [M]. London: Business Publications Ltd.
Campbell, G. 1977. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [A]. In L.F. Bitzer (ed.).(1988) Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Candida Jaci de Sousa Melo, 2002. Possible directions of fit between mind, language and the world [A]. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 109-117.
Carnap, R. 1956. Meaning and Necessity [M]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Carter, R. & P. Simpson. (eds.). 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics [C]. London: Unwin Hyman.
Charniak, E. 1975. Organisation and Inference in a Framelike system of Common Sense Knowledge [A]. In R. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (eds.). Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing [C]. An Interdisciplinary Workshop, Cambridge, MA.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Charniak, E. 1979. Ms Malaprop, A Language Comprehension Program [A]. In D. Metzing (ed.). Frame Conception of Prose and Its Effects on Memory [C]. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Cherry, R. 1990. Politeness in Written Persuasion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics.
Clark, H.H. 1979. Response to indirect speech acts [A]. Cognitive Psychology [C]. Academic Press, 11: pp. 430-477. Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, pp.199-230.
Clark, J. & C. Yallop, 2000. An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Clocksin,W.F. & C.S. Mellish, 1981. Progressing in Prolog [M]. Berlin: Springer.
Coates, J., 1995. The Negotiation of Coherence in Face-to-face Interaction: Some Examples From the Extreme Bounds [A]. In M.A. Gersbacher & T. Givón (eds.). Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C], (TSL vol. 31). John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.41-58.
Cohen, P.R., & Perrault, C.R. 1979. Elements of a Plan-based Theory of Speech Acts [J]. Cognitive Science, 3: pp. 177-212.
Cole, P. 1975. The Synchronic and Diachronic Status of Conversational Implicarture [A]. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics [C]. (Vol. 3: Speech Acts). New York: Academic Press.
Coleridge, S. 1967. Biographia Letteraria [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Cook, G. 1990a. Transcribing Infinity: Problem of Context Presentation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 14/1: pp. 1-24.
Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Corbett, E.P.J. & R.J. Connors. 1999. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student [M]. (The fourth edition). Oxford : OUP.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1983. Investigating English Style [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Corke, A. 1986. Advertising And Public Relations: For executive Who Want to Acquire Essential New Management Skills to Develop Their Careers [M]. London: Pan Books.
Coulthard, R. M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Longman.
Coulthard, R.M. & D.C. Brazil. 1979. Exchanges Structure [A]. In Discourse Analysis Monographs [C], (Vol. 5.). Birmingham: Birmingham University. Reprinted in Coulthard, R.M. & M. Montgomery (eds.). 1981, Studies in Discourse Analysis [C]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.82-106.
Coulthard, R.M. & D.C. Brazil. 1981. Aspects of the Theory of Discourse [A]. In Couthard, R. M., & M. Montgomery. (eds.). Studies in Discourse Analysis [C]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Crombie, W. 1985. Process and Relation in Discourse and Language learning [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Sinclair, J. McH., & R.M. Coulthard 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1975. Advanced Conversation English [M]. London: Longman.
Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1983. Investigating English Style [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Crombie, W.1985. Process and Relation in Discourse and Language Learning [M].Oxford: OUP.
Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Davis, S. (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP.
Davis, W. A. 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Danes, F. 1974. Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of Text [A]. In F. Dane?(ed.). Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective [C]. Prague: Academia.
Dascal, M. 1981. Contextualism [A]. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa, & J. Verschueren (eds.). Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 153-79.
Davidson, D.1979. What Metaphors Mean [A]. In Sacks, S. (ed.). On Metaphor [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 29-46.
van Dijk, T.A. 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, T. A.(ed.) 1976. Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
van Dijk, T. A. 1976. Pragmatics and Poetics [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp.23-57.
van Dijk, T.A. 1977. Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse [M]. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T.A., 1978. The Structures and Functions of Discourse: Interdisciplinary Introduction into Textlinguistics and Discourse Studies [M]. Puerto Rico Lectures.
van Dijk, T.A. 1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction and Cognition [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
van Dijk, T. A. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, T.A. 1982. Opinions and attitudes in discourse comprehension [A]. In Le Ny, J.F. Kintsch, W. (eds.). Language and Comprehension [C]. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland, pp.35-51.
van Dijk, T.A. 1985. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Vol. 1-2. New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A.& W. Kintsch.1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension [M]. New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A. 1985. Introduction: Discourse Analysis As a New Cross-discipline [A]. In T. A. van Dijk. (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse. New York: Academic Press, pp.1-10.
Duranti, A. & C. Goodwin. (eds.). 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as An Interactive Phenomenon [C]. Cambridge: CUP.
Dyer, G.1982. Advertising as Communication [M]. London: Methuen.
Edmondson, W. 1981. Spoken Discourse : A Model for Analysis [M]. London: Longman.
Edmondson, W. 1999. If coherence Is Achieved, Then Where Doth Meaning Lie? [A]. In Bublitz, W., U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse:How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 251-265.
Edwards, A.D. 1976. Language in Culture and Class [M]. London: Heinnemann Educational Books Ltd.
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic functional Linguistics [M]. London: Pinter.
Ehrlich, S. 1990. Point of View: A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style [M]. London: Routledge.
Enkvist, N. E. 1964. On Defining Style [A]. In M. J. Gregory (ed.). Linguistics and Style [C]. London: OUP.
Enkivist, N.E. 1977. Coherence, Pseudo-coherence and Non-coherence [A]. In J.O.OSTMAN (ed.).Cohesion and Semantics [C]. Abo: Abo Akademi Foundation.
Enkvist, N. E. 1985. Text and Discourse Linguistics, Rhetoric, and stylistics [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Discourse and Literature [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.11-36.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. Is Sybil There? The Structure of American English Directives [J]. Language in Society, 5: pp. 25-66.
Firth, J.R. 1935. On Sociological Linguistics [A]. In D. Hymes (ed.). Language in Culture and Society [C]. Harper & Row 1964, pp.7-64.
Firth, J.R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics [M]. (1934-1951) Oxford: OUP.
Fish, S. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fishman, J. (ed.) 1971. Advances in the Sociology of Language [C]. Mouton, pp. 8-61.
Fodor, J. A. 1975. The Language of Thought [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fogelin, R. J. 1988. Figuratively Speaking [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Follert, V. 1986. Appositions in Plans and Scripts: An Application to Initial Interactions [A]. In D G Ellis, & W. A. (eds.). Donohue Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes [C]. Hillsdale and N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 249/253.
Fowler, R. 1966. Linguistic Theory and the Study of Literature [A]. In R. Fowler (ed.). Essays on Style and Language [C]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Frege, G. 1879. Selections From Begriffsschrift, in Translations From the Philosophical Writings of Goottlob Frege [A]. (ed.) and (trans.). P. Geach & M. Black. 1952. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fries, P. 1983. On the Status of Theme in English [A]. In S.P. Janos, & E. Sozer (eds.). Micro-and Macro-connexity of discourse [C]. Hamburg: Buske.
Freund, E. 1987 The Return of the Reader: Reader-response Criticism [M]. London: Methuen.
Gee, J.P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Routledge.
Geluykens, R. 1997. It Takes Two to Cohere: the Collaborative Dimension of Topical Coherence ni Conversation [A]. In W. Bublitz, Utalenk & E. Ventola (eds.). Coherence in spoken and written discourse [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 35-53.
Givó n,T., 1995. Coherence in Text vs. Coherence in Mind [A]. In M.A. Gersbacher & T. Givón (eds.). Coherence in Spontaneous Text [C], (TSL. vol.31). John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.59-115.
Goffman, E. 1976. Replies and Responses [J]. Language in Society. 5: pp. 257-313.
Goffman, E.,1979. Forms of Talk [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goffman, E. 1981a. Introduction. In Forms of Talk [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 1-4.
Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning [J]. Philosophical Review, 66: pp.377-388.
Grice, H.P. 1968. Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning [J]. Foundations of Language. Harvard University Press, 4: pp.225-242. (Reprinted In S. Davis (ed.) 1991.Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, pp.65-96.)
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation [A]. In P. Cole & J.L Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics [C]. Vol,3: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58. (Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, pp.305-315.)
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Reprinted in 2002 by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing.
Grosz, B. 1981. Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogues [A]. In A. Joshi, B. Webber & I. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.84-105.
Gülich, E. & W. Raible. 1977. Linguistische Textmodelle [M]. München: Fink.
Gumperz, J.J. & D. Hymes. 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gumperz, J.J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Gumperz, J.J. 1982b. Language and Social Identity [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Haack, S. 1993. Evidence and inquiry: towards reconstruction in epistemology [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967-8. Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English [J]. Journal of Linguistic, 1-3: pp.37-81, 199-244.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotics: The Socil Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. Edward Arnold Publisher Limited.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. English Intonation as a Resource for Discourse [J]. Beitr?ge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 48 (Festschrift in Honour of Arthur Delbridge).
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985b. Dimensions of Diacourse Analysis: Grammar [A]. In T.A. van Djik (ed.).Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C], vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse. London: Academic Press, pp.29-55.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language As a Socio-semantics Perspective [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View: principles of Reasoning [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harris, Z. 1952. Discourse Analysis [J]. Language, 28: pp. 1-30.
Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony [A]. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding Reading Comprehension [C]. Delaware: International Reading Association, pp: 181-219.
Hawkes, T.1984. Metaphor [M]. London: Methuen.
Hayes, P.J. 1979 The Logic of Frames [A]. In D. Metzing (ed.). Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding [C]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hirst, G., 1981. Anaphora in natural language understanding: a survey [M]. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
Hobbs, J.R.1979. Coherence and Coreferenc [J]. Cognitive Science, 3: 67-90.
Hockett. C. F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics [M]. New York: Macmillan. 226
Hoey, M.P. 1991a. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Hoey, M.P. 1991b. Another Perspective on Coherence and Cohesive Harmony [A]. In Ventola, E. (ed.). Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.385-414.
Hoey, M.P.2001. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Routledge.
Holmes, J. 1989. Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative Competence [J]. Applied Linguistics, 10: pp.194-213.
Holmes, J.1990. Apologies in New Zealand English [J]. Language in Society, 19(2): pp.155-200.
Horn, L.R. 1984. Towards a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature [A]. In D. Schiffrin (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics [C]. Washington. D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp.11-42.
Hudson, R.A. 1980. Sociolinguistics [M].Cambridge: CUP.
Hymes, D. (ed.) 1964. Language in Culture and Society [C]. New York: Harper & Row.
Hymes, D. 1972. Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life[A]. In J.J. Gumperz & D.Hymes (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp.35-71.
Ingarden, R. 1973. The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic and the Theory of Literature [M]. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
Iser, W. 1974. The Implied Reader: Patterns of communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett[M]. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Iser, W. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response [M]. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language [C]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp.350-77.
Jackson, S. 1983. Contributions of Rule Knowledge and World Knowledge to Inferences about Beliefs and Intentions [A]. Paper presented at the University of Kansas Conference on Social Cognition and Interpersonal Behavior, Lawrence, Kansas.
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2004. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse [M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Keenan, E. L. 1971. Two Kinds of Presupposition in Natural Language [A]. In C.J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Semantics [C]. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, pp.45-54.
Kelman, H. G. 1958. Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change [J]. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: pp. 51-60.
Kempson, R. M. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Kernighan, B.W. & J.M. Ritchie. 1978. The C programming language [M]. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kim, K. L. 1996, Caged in Out Own Signs [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Krekel, M. 1981. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse [M]. London: Academic Press.
Labov, W. 1972a, Sociolinguistic Patterns [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. 1972b. Language in the Inner City [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Labov, W. 1972e. Rules for Ritual Insults [A]. In Sudnow, D. (ed.). Studies in Social Interaction [C]. New York: Free Press, pp. 120-169.
Labov, W. 1972f. The study of language in its social context [A]. In P. Giglioli (ed.). Language and Social Context [C]. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp.157-217.
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Lakoff, R. 1973. The Logic and Politeness: or Minding Your P’s And R’s [A]. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago, pp. 292-305.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphor We Live By [M]. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Leavis, F.R. & D. Thompson. 1933. Culture and Environment [M]. London: Chatto & Windus.
Leech, G., 1966. English in Advertising [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N. 1969. A linguistic Guide to English Poetry [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N. 1974. Semantics [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Leech, G. N. 1980. Exploration in Semantics and Pragmatics [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N. 1985. Stylistics [A]. In van Dijk, T.A.(ed.). Discourse and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp 39-57.
Leech, G.N. & M.H. Short. 1981. Style in Fiction [M]. London: Longman.
Lehrer, K. 1990. Theory of Knowledge [M]. Boulder: Wetview.
Levin S.R. 1976. Concerning What Kind of Speech Act a Poem Is [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp.141-160.
Levinson, S. E. 1981. The Essential Inadequacies of Speech Act Models of Dialogue [A]. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa, & J. Verschueren (eds.). Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp. 183-210.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Lewis, D. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study [M]. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Linde, C & W. Labov. 1975. Spatial Networks as a Site for the Study of Language and Thought [J]. Language, 51: pp. 924-39.
Linde, C & J. Goguen 1978. The Structure of Planning Discourse [J]. Journal pf Social and Biological Structure, 1: pp.219-51.
Lock, J. 1990. An essay Concerning Human Understanding [A]. In P. H. Nidditch (ed.). Oxford: OUP.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Malinowski, B. 1935, Coral Gardens and Their Magic [M] (vol. 2). London: Allen & Unwin. Republished in 1965 by Indiana University Press.
Martin, J.R. 1984. Language, Register and Genre [A]. In F. Christie (ed.). Children Writing: reader [C]. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, M.J. 1988. Some Vocabulary Patterns in Conversation [A]. In R.A. Carter & M.J. McCarthy 228 (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching [C]. London: Longman.
McCarthy, M.J. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
McGuire, W.J. 1968. Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence [A]. In E.F. Borgatta & W.W. Lambert (eds.). Handbook of Personality Theory and Research [C]. Chicago: Rand McNally.
McTear, M 1987. The articulate Computer [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Merritt, M. 1976. On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters [J]. Language in Society, 5: pp. 315-57.
Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K.H. 1960. Plans and the Structure of Behavior [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Minsky, M.L. 1975. A Framework for Representing Knowledge [A]. In P. Winston (ed.). The Psychology of Computer Vision [C]. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211-27.
Morgan, J.L. 1978. Two types of convention in direct speech acts [A]. In P. Cole (ed.). Pragmatics. In Syntax and Semantics [C], vol. 9: pp.261-280.
Nash, W.1989. Rhetoric: The wit of persuasion [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Naomi & A. Kasher. 1976. Speech Acts, Context and Valuable Ambiguities [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature[C]. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., pp.77-81.
Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.Ohmann, R., 1971b. Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature [J]. In Philosophy and rhetoric, 4: pp.1-19.
Ohmann, R., 1972. Speech, Literature, and the Space Between [J]. New literary history, 4: pp. 47-63.
Ohmann, R, 1973. Literature as Act [A]. In S. Chatman (ed.). Approaches to Poetics [C]. New York and London: Columbia University Press, pp. 81-107.
Ostman, J.O. 1999. Coherence Through Understanding Through Discourse Patterns: Focus on News Report [A]. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.77-99.
Packard, V. 1981. The Hidden Persuaders [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Papegaail, B. & Klaus Schubert, 1988. Text Coherence in Translation [M]. USA: Foris Publications.
Philips, M. 1985. Aspects of Text Structure: an investigation of the lexical organization of text [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Pike, K.L. 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour [M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Planalp, S. 1986. Script, Story Grammars, and Causal Schemas [A]. In G. Ellis & W.A. Donohue (eds.). Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes [C]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Plett, H. F. 1985. Rhetoric [A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.). Discourse and Literature [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 59-84.
Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach [M]. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Pufahl, I. 1988. How to Assign Work in an Office: A Comparison of Spoken and Written Directives in American English [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 10: pp. 673-92.
Quintilian. 1920-22. Institutio Oratoria [M]. (Trans. Butler, H.E. 4 vols.) Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Recanati, F. 1989. The Pragmatics of What Is Said [J]. Mind and Language, 4. Basil Blackwell. Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: OUP, pp. 97-120.
Reinhart, T. 1980. Conditions of Coherence [J]. Poetics Today, 1(4): 61-84.
Ricoeur, P. 1989. Rhetoric— Poetics— Hermeneutics [A]. In M. Meyer (ed.). From Metaphysics to Rhetoric [C]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 137-149.
Riesbeck, C.K. & R.C. Schank. 1978. Comprehension by Computer: Expectation-based Analysis of Sentence in Context [A]. In W.J.M. Levelt & G.B. Flories d’Arcais (eds.). Studies in the Perception of Language [C]. New York: Willey.
Ross, J. 1970. On Declarative Sentence [A]. In R. Jacob & P. Rosenbaum (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar [C]. Lexington, Mass.: Ginn.
Rumelhart, D.E. & Ortony, A. 1977. The Representation of Knowledge in Memory [A]. In R.C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (eds.). Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge [C]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Russell, B. 1905. On Denoting [J]. Mind, 14: pp.479-93.
Russell, B. 1957. Mr. Strawson on Referring [J]. Mind, 66: pp.385-9.
Sacks, H. 1972a. Lecture Notes [A]. School of Social Science [mimeo.], Department of Sociology, University of California at Irvine.
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation [J]. Language, 50/4, pp. 696-735.
Sadock, J.M. 1978. On Testing for Conversational Implicature [A]. In P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semantics [C], 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 282-297.
Sadock, J.M. 1981. Almost [A]. In P. Cole. (ed.). Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp. 257-272.
Salkie, R., 1995. Text and Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Routledge.
Sandell, R. 1977. Linguistic Style and Persuasion [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & L. Noordman. 1992. Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations [J]. Discourse Process, 15: pp.1-35.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & L. Noordman. 1993. Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4: pp. 93-133.
Savas, L. T. (ed.). 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory [C]. London: Routledge.
Saville-Troike, M. 1982. The Ethnography of Communication [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schank, R.C. & R. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding [M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Schegloff, E. 1972. Sequencing in Conversational Openings [A]. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 346-80.
Schegloff, E. & H. Sacke. 1973. Opening up Closings [J]. Semiotica, 7 (3/4): pp.289-327.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schmidt, S.J. 1976. Towards a Pragmatic Interpretation of ‘Fictionality’[A]. In van Dijk, T.A. (eds.). Pragmatics of Language and Literature [C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co, pp. 161-227.
Searle, J.R. 1965. What is a speech act? [A]. In M. Black (ed.). Philosophy in America [C]. Unwin Hyman, pp. 221-239.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Act: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Act [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R. 1975a. Indirect Speech Acts [A]. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics [C], vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.50-82. (Also in Searle, 1979: pp30-57).
Searle, J. R. 1975b. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts [A]. In K. Gunderson (ed.). Language, Mind and Knowledge [C]. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.344-369.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Act [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R., Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M. (eds.), 1980a. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Searle, J. R. 1980b. The Background of Meaning [A]. In J.R. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch, (eds.). Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 221-232.
Searle, J.R. 1982. Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.92-123. Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.), (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.519-539.
Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R. & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J. R. 1989. How Performatives Work [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: pp. 535-558. In D. Vanderveken & D. Kubo (eds.). (2002) Essays in Speech Act Theory [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 89-107.
Searle, J.R. & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R. 1992. On conversation [A]. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (eds.). On Searle on Conversation [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company..
Seidlhofer, B. & H. Widdowson 1999. Coherence in Summery: The Context of Appropriate Discourse [A]. In Bublitz, W., U. Lenk & E. Ventola. (eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 205-219.
Short, M. 1989. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. In R. Carter & P. Simpson (eds.). Language, Discourse and Literature [C]. London: Unwin Hyman. Pp.145-147.
Schiffrin, D. 1987a .Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Schiffrin, D. !994. Approaches to Discourse [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sinclair, J. & M. Coulthard 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used By Teachers and Pupils [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Singer, M. 1990 Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Sentence and Discourse Processes[M]. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1981. Irony and the Use-mention Distinction [A]. In P Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press, pp.295-318.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986a. Relevance, Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986b. Loose talk [J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian, 86 (1985-1986), pp.153-171. Reprinted in S. Davis, (ed.). (1991) Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: OUP, pp. 540-549.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986c. Inference and Implicature [A]. In C. Travis (ed.). Meaning and Interpretation [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 45-75.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Strawson, P.F.1950. On Referring [J]. Mind, 59, pp. 315-32.
Strawson, P.F. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.
Strawson, P.F. 1964. Intention and Convention in Speech Acts [J]. Philosophical Review 73, pp.439-60. (Also in Searle (ed.) 1971)
Strawson, P. F. 1974. Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar [M]. London: Methuen.
Stross, B. 1974. Speaking of Speaking: Tenjapa Tzeltal Metalinguistics [A]. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp.213-39
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis—English in Academic and Research Settings [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Tanaka, K., 1994. Advertising Language [M]. London: Routledge.
Tannen, D. What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations [A]. In R. Freedle (ed.). New Directions in Discourse Processing [C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing, pp. 137-81.
Thagard, P. 2000. Coherence in Thought and Action [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press
Tsohatzidis, S.L. (ed.) 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory [C]. London: Routledge.
Tyler, S.A. 1978. The Said and the Unsaid [M] New York: Academic Press.
Vanderveken, D. & Kubo, S. (eds.) 2002. Essays in Speech Act Theory [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Vanderveken, D. & Kubo, S. 2002. Introduction. In Vanderveken, D. & S. Kubo (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory (eds.), [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-21.
Vanderveken, D. 2002. Universal grammar and speech act theory [A]. In Vanderveken, D. & S. Kubo (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory (eds.), [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 25-61.
Vanderveken, D. 1999a. La Structure Logique des Dialogues Intelligents [A]. In B. Moulin et al (eds.). Analyse et Simulation de Conversation [C]. L’Interdiscilplinaree, pp. 87-125.
Vanderveken, D. 1997c. La Logique Illocutoire et L’analyse du Discours [A]. In D. Luzzati et al (eds.). Le Dialogue [C]. Paris: Editions Peter Lang, pp. 62-100.
Velde, R.G. van de. 1983. Coherence Relations in Texts and Inferential Processing [A]. In S. Hattori & Inoue, K. (eds.). Proceeding of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists [C]. Tokyo: pp.1040-1044.
Velde, R.G. van de. 1984a Inferences and coherence in text interpretation [A]. In E. S?zer (ed.). Text Connexity, Text Coherence. Aspects, Methods, Results [C]. Hamburg: H. Buske (Papers in Textlinguistics 49), pp. 261-298.
Velde, R.G. van de. 1986. Man, Verbal Text, Inferencing, and Coherence [A]. In W. Heydrich, F. Neubauer, S.J. Pet?fi, & E. S?zer (eds.). Connexity and Coherence.: Analysis of Text and Discourse [C]. Berlin: Waltre de Gruyter, pp.174-214.
Vestergaard, T. & K. Schr?der 1985. The Language of Advertising [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vuchinich, S. 1977. Elements of Cohesion Between Turns in Ordinary Conversation [J]. Seiotica, 20, pp. 229-57.
Walker, R. 1975. Conversational Implicatures [A]. In S. Blackburn (ed.), Meaning Reference, and Necessity: New Studies in Semantics [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 133-181.
Wales, K. 1989. A Dictionary of Stylistics [M]. London: Longman.
Warnock, G. J. 1973. Some Types of Performative Utterance [A]. In I. Berlin (ed.). Essays on J.L. Austin [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.68-89.
Werlich, E. 1982. A Text Grammar of English [M]. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.
Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Widdowson, H.G. 1979. Explorations in Applied Linguistics [M]. Oxford: OUP.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 1988b Representation and Relevance [A]. In R. Kepson (ed.). Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality [C]. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 133-53.
Winter, E.O. 1979. Replacement as a Fundamental Function of the Sentence in Context [J]. Forum Linguisticum 4/2: 95-133.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: OUP.
陈海庆,1991,《麦克白》中的修辞手段极其艺术效果 [J],《山东外语教学》第 1 期。
陈海庆,2003,英语语调的语用功能极其韵律结构 [A],载 扬忠、张绍杰《语篇、认知、功能》[C]。 吉林人民出版社。
陈海庆、张绍杰,2003,《含义:意向、规约和原则在格赖斯理论解释中的失败》( 1998)评介 [J], 《外语教学与研究》第 3 期。
陈海庆、张绍杰,2004,语篇连贯:言语行为理论视角 [J],《外语教学与研究》第 6 期。
程雨民,1986,英语使用中的表面不连贯[J],《外国语》第 4 期。
顾曰国,1989,奥斯汀的言语行为理论:诠释与批判 [J],《外语教学与研究》第 1 期。
桂诗春,1985,《心理语言学》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
何自然,1986,《语用学概论》[M]。长沙:湖南教育出版社。
何自然、冉永平,2001,《语用与认知——关联理论研究》[C]。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
何兆熊 等,1999,《新编语义学概要》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1992,《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2000,《功能主义纵横谈》[M]。北京:外语教育与研究出版社。
黄国文,1988,《语篇分析概论》[M]。长沙:湖南教育出版社。
黄国文,2001,《语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
黄 衍,1985,试论英语主位与述位[J],《外国语》第 4 期。
林纪诚,1988,试论语篇连贯的条件[J],《现代外语》第 4 期。
林纪诚,1989,语义连贯的语义模式[J],《外语教学》第 2 期。
秦秀白,2002,《英语语体和文体要略》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
沈家煊,1990,语用学和语义学的分界[J],《外语教学与研究》第 2 期。
沈家煊,1997,语用?认知?言外义[J],《外语教学与研究》第 4 期。
武 果,1987,也谈篇章的连贯性[J],《现代外语》第 4 期。
王佐良、丁望道,1987,《英语文体学引论》[M]。北京:外语教育与研究出版社。
王宗炎,1994,“序”,《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M]。(胡壮麟 著).上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王守元,2000,《英语文体学要略》[M]。济南:山东大学出版社。
徐盛桓,1991,语用推理[J],《外语学刊》,第 6 期。
徐盛桓,1993a,新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J],《外国语》第 1 期。
徐盛桓,1993b,会话含意理论的新发展[J],《现代外语》第 2 期。
徐盛桓,1993c,论常规关系[J],《外国语》第 6 期。
徐盛桓,2002,常规关系与认知化[J],《外国语》第 1 期。
杨 忠、张绍杰,《语篇?功能?认知》[C]。长春:吉林人民出版社。
扬玉成,2002,《奥斯汀:语言现象学与哲学》[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
姚小平,1998,《洪堡特——人文研究和语言研究》[M]。北京:外语教学与外语研究出版社。
张建理,1998,连贯研究概览[J],《外语教学与研究》第 4 期。
张建理,2000,论语篇连贯机制[J],《浙江大学学报》(人文社科版)第 6 期。
张绍杰,2001,《表述和意义:言语行为研究》导读 (John Searle 著)。北京:外语教育与研究出版社,剑桥大学出版社。
张绍杰,1994,言语行为与施为动词[J],《外语与外语教学》第 6 期。
张德禄,1999,语篇连贯纵横谈[J],《外国语》第 6 期。
张德禄,2000,论语篇连贯[J],《外语教学与研究》第 2 期。
张德禄、刘洪民,1994,主位结构与语篇连贯[J],《外语研究》第 3 期。
朱永生,1995,衔接理论的发展与完善[J],《外国语》第 3 期。
朱永生,1996,语篇连贯的内部条件(上)[J],《现代外语》第 4 期。
朱永生,1997a,语篇连贯的内部条件(下)[J],《现代外语》第 1 期。
朱永生,1997b,Halliday 的语篇连贯标准:外界的误解与自身的不足[J],《外语教学与研究》第 1 期。
朱永生、严世清,2002,《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。