英汉主位结构对比与翻译
|
摘要
翻译是以一种语言将另一种语言所表达的内容再现出来的活动，因此不可避免地涉及到两种语言之间的对比。只有对原语和译语之间的异同有深入的了解，译者才能在翻译转换时做出恰当的选择，以符合译语表达习惯的形式忠实地传达出原文所表达的意义。
根据韩礼德的系统功能语法，语言具有三大元功能：概念功能、人际功能和篇章功能，这三大功能分别表达三种意义，即概念意义、人际意义和篇章意义。三种意义是小句整体意义中的三个有机部分，以再现原文整体意义为目的的翻译应该对这三种意义都予以同等重视。而传统的翻译研究在强调原文与译文之间概念意义和人际意义的对等时，却忽视了篇章意义的对等。因此本文将试图以韩礼德的功能理论为基础，探讨英汉语在体现篇章意义的主位结构上的异同及其影响因素，以及这些异同对英汉互译的影响。
全文共分为四章。
第一章首先简要介绍了韩礼德对主位的论述，指出主位分析同样也适用于汉语。在此基础上，本章主要比较了英汉语中陈述句的主位位置上所能出现的句法成分之间的异同，发现汉语主位位置上可出现的句法成分比英语的要灵活多样，同时汉语篇章中有突出的零主语现象。翻译时译者应当充分利用英汉主位句法成分选择的不同特点，不能一味照搬原文主位结构。
第二章阐述了主位结构中标记性的意义和功能，指出有标记的主位总是带有特别的篇章意义。接着本章以英汉语中宾语主位性前置结构的对比为例，说明了这两种语言在主位标记性上的不同：英语的这种结构是移位生成的，因而是有标记的；而汉语的是内在具有的，所以是无标记的。因此，文章提出在翻译中译者应注意选择恰当的有标记的或无标记的形式以忠实传达原文意义；在译语没有对应的有标记结构时，则需通过词汇手段表达有标记主位所带的特别意义。
第三章讨论英汉主位在负载信息上的异同。英语中主位可带零信息、已知信息和新信息，而汉语主位通常只带已知信息。这一现象与英汉句子组织原则的不同有关。英语句子组织中末尾重量和末尾中心
两大原则共同作用，有冲突时末尾重量原则优先。汉语一般而言只遵
守末尾中心原则，因而汉语有一种强烈的已知信息提前，未知信息置
于句末的趋势。由于英语并不具有这一趋势，本章接着探讨了译者在
翻译时如何改变原文的主位结构以符合汉语的表达习惯，并实现信息
价值的对等。
第四章在前几章讨论的基础上，将对主位选择的讨论从小句层次
上升到篇章层次。指出由于句法限制和思维方式不同等原因，英汉语
在主位推进中主位的选择各不相同，因而表现出不同的篇章组织方
式。译者必须根据译语的篇章组织原则组织译文，使其读起来自然顺
汤，又不损害原文的信息结构。
最后文章指出，英汉语在主位结构上有相同之处，但更多的是不
同之处。在不能实现主位结构的对等时，译者必须按照译语的篇章组
织原则组织译文，以实现信息结构上的对等。
Translation is essentially the representation in one language of what is written or said in another language. It inevitably involves a contrastive study between the source language (SL) and the target language (TL). Only when possessing a good knowledge of the similarities and differences between the two languages concerned can a translator make proper choices in representing faithfully the meanings of the original in accordance with the habitual expressing way of the TL.
According to Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar, language has three metafunctions: the ideational function, the interpersonal function and the textual function. Respectively, they express three kinds of meanings, namely, the ideational meaning, the interpersonal meaning and the textual meaning. Each of the three types of meaning contributes equally to the meaning of the clause as a whole. As Nida (1982) puts it, translating means translating meaning. It is therefore desirable to put equal weight on all the three kinds of meanings in translation. However, traditional translation studies seem to lay stress on the first two while not paying enough attention to the last. Based on Halliday's Functional Grammar, this thesis investigates the similarities and differences between English and Chinese in thematic structure, which is the grammatical realization of the textual meaning, and how these similarities and differences influence translation.
This thesis consists of four chapters in addition to an introduction and a conclusion.
The first chapter studies the syntactic constituents in Theme position and the coincidence between Theme and Subject in the declarative clause of English and Chinese. The study shows that Chinese is more flexible than English in choosing what constituents to be Theme, since verb phrases, adjective phrases and post-position structures occur normally in Theme position in Chinese. Besides, Theme is more frequently identical
with Subject in English than in Chinese, and there are a large number of clauses with zero Subject realizing Theme in Chinese. The author therefore suggests that a translator give full consideration to the differences between English and Chinese in thematic choice and avoid blindly copying the original thematic structure in the target version.
The second chapter first introduces briefly the notion of markedness, and then looks into the differences between English and Chinese in marked condition. The contrastwe analysis indicates that the thematic fronting of Object in English is a result of the left-movement thus marked, but in Chinese it is generated inherently thus unmarked. In translation, it is proposed that an unmarked or a marked structure in the SL be replaced correspondingly by an equally unmarked or a marked one in the TL, for a marked Theme always carries more meaning than an unmarked one. When it is impossible to find an equally marked structure in the TL, the translator can resort to some extra lexical devices to represent the special emphasis signaled by a marked structure in the original.
The third chapter focuses on a contrastive study of the information status of Theme between English and Chinese. The conclusion is that the English Theme can carry New or Given or Zero information, but the thematic information is always Given in Chinese. This difference stems from the different principles of clause construction in English and Chinese. In English, the principles of end-weight and end-focus correlate with each other in organizing the clause, and in case of conflict the former normally takes precedence over the latter. However, Chinese seems to observe the principle of end-focus only. Accordingly, there is a strong tendency in Chinese to put the known or old information previous to the unknown of new. Considering that English does not have this tendency, this chapter then discusses tentatively how to rearrange certain English thematic structures in English-Chinese translation to achieve information equivalence as well as to keep in line with the Chinese habitual way of expressio
根据韩礼德的系统功能语法，语言具有三大元功能：概念功能、人际功能和篇章功能，这三大功能分别表达三种意义，即概念意义、人际意义和篇章意义。三种意义是小句整体意义中的三个有机部分，以再现原文整体意义为目的的翻译应该对这三种意义都予以同等重视。而传统的翻译研究在强调原文与译文之间概念意义和人际意义的对等时，却忽视了篇章意义的对等。因此本文将试图以韩礼德的功能理论为基础，探讨英汉语在体现篇章意义的主位结构上的异同及其影响因素，以及这些异同对英汉互译的影响。
全文共分为四章。
第一章首先简要介绍了韩礼德对主位的论述，指出主位分析同样也适用于汉语。在此基础上，本章主要比较了英汉语中陈述句的主位位置上所能出现的句法成分之间的异同，发现汉语主位位置上可出现的句法成分比英语的要灵活多样，同时汉语篇章中有突出的零主语现象。翻译时译者应当充分利用英汉主位句法成分选择的不同特点，不能一味照搬原文主位结构。
第二章阐述了主位结构中标记性的意义和功能，指出有标记的主位总是带有特别的篇章意义。接着本章以英汉语中宾语主位性前置结构的对比为例，说明了这两种语言在主位标记性上的不同：英语的这种结构是移位生成的，因而是有标记的；而汉语的是内在具有的，所以是无标记的。因此，文章提出在翻译中译者应注意选择恰当的有标记的或无标记的形式以忠实传达原文意义；在译语没有对应的有标记结构时，则需通过词汇手段表达有标记主位所带的特别意义。
第三章讨论英汉主位在负载信息上的异同。英语中主位可带零信息、已知信息和新信息，而汉语主位通常只带已知信息。这一现象与英汉句子组织原则的不同有关。英语句子组织中末尾重量和末尾中心
两大原则共同作用，有冲突时末尾重量原则优先。汉语一般而言只遵
守末尾中心原则，因而汉语有一种强烈的已知信息提前，未知信息置
于句末的趋势。由于英语并不具有这一趋势，本章接着探讨了译者在
翻译时如何改变原文的主位结构以符合汉语的表达习惯，并实现信息
价值的对等。
第四章在前几章讨论的基础上，将对主位选择的讨论从小句层次
上升到篇章层次。指出由于句法限制和思维方式不同等原因，英汉语
在主位推进中主位的选择各不相同，因而表现出不同的篇章组织方
式。译者必须根据译语的篇章组织原则组织译文，使其读起来自然顺
汤，又不损害原文的信息结构。
最后文章指出，英汉语在主位结构上有相同之处，但更多的是不
同之处。在不能实现主位结构的对等时，译者必须按照译语的篇章组
织原则组织译文，以实现信息结构上的对等。
Translation is essentially the representation in one language of what is written or said in another language. It inevitably involves a contrastive study between the source language (SL) and the target language (TL). Only when possessing a good knowledge of the similarities and differences between the two languages concerned can a translator make proper choices in representing faithfully the meanings of the original in accordance with the habitual expressing way of the TL.
According to Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar, language has three metafunctions: the ideational function, the interpersonal function and the textual function. Respectively, they express three kinds of meanings, namely, the ideational meaning, the interpersonal meaning and the textual meaning. Each of the three types of meaning contributes equally to the meaning of the clause as a whole. As Nida (1982) puts it, translating means translating meaning. It is therefore desirable to put equal weight on all the three kinds of meanings in translation. However, traditional translation studies seem to lay stress on the first two while not paying enough attention to the last. Based on Halliday's Functional Grammar, this thesis investigates the similarities and differences between English and Chinese in thematic structure, which is the grammatical realization of the textual meaning, and how these similarities and differences influence translation.
This thesis consists of four chapters in addition to an introduction and a conclusion.
The first chapter studies the syntactic constituents in Theme position and the coincidence between Theme and Subject in the declarative clause of English and Chinese. The study shows that Chinese is more flexible than English in choosing what constituents to be Theme, since verb phrases, adjective phrases and post-position structures occur normally in Theme position in Chinese. Besides, Theme is more frequently identical
with Subject in English than in Chinese, and there are a large number of clauses with zero Subject realizing Theme in Chinese. The author therefore suggests that a translator give full consideration to the differences between English and Chinese in thematic choice and avoid blindly copying the original thematic structure in the target version.
The second chapter first introduces briefly the notion of markedness, and then looks into the differences between English and Chinese in marked condition. The contrastwe analysis indicates that the thematic fronting of Object in English is a result of the left-movement thus marked, but in Chinese it is generated inherently thus unmarked. In translation, it is proposed that an unmarked or a marked structure in the SL be replaced correspondingly by an equally unmarked or a marked one in the TL, for a marked Theme always carries more meaning than an unmarked one. When it is impossible to find an equally marked structure in the TL, the translator can resort to some extra lexical devices to represent the special emphasis signaled by a marked structure in the original.
The third chapter focuses on a contrastive study of the information status of Theme between English and Chinese. The conclusion is that the English Theme can carry New or Given or Zero information, but the thematic information is always Given in Chinese. This difference stems from the different principles of clause construction in English and Chinese. In English, the principles of end-weight and end-focus correlate with each other in organizing the clause, and in case of conflict the former normally takes precedence over the latter. However, Chinese seems to observe the principle of end-focus only. Accordingly, there is a strong tendency in Chinese to put the known or old information previous to the unknown of new. Considering that English does not have this tendency, this chapter then discusses tentatively how to rearrange certain English thematic structures in English-Chinese translation to achieve information equivalence as well as to keep in line with the Chinese habitual way of expressio
引文
Baker, M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longrnan Group LTD, 1991.
Birch, C. Anthology of Chinese Literature, vol. 2. New York: Grive Press.Inc, 1972.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Callow, K. Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God. Michigan: Zondervan.1974.
Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic FunctionaI Linguistics. London: Pinter, 1996.
Fang Yan, Edward McDonald & Cheng Musheng. 'On Theme in Chinese: From Clause to Discourse', in Hasan, R. & Fries, P. H. (eds) On Subject and Theme-A Discourse Functional Perspective. Philadelphia: John. Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995, 235-273.
Fox, B. (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1996.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Givon, T. (ed.) Topic Continuity in Discourse-A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1983.
Givon, T. (ed.) Discourse and Syntax, Syntax and semantics 12. NY: Academic Press, 1979.
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. A Student's Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman, 1990.
Hasan, R. & Fries, P. H. (eds) On Subject and Theme-A Discourse Functional Perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Jin Di & Nida, E. A. On Translation with special reference to Chinese and English. Beijing: China Translation and Publishing Corporation. 1984.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 'The environments of translation'. In Steiner, E. and Yallop, C.(eds) Beyond content. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.
Ming-Ming Pu, 'Zero Anaphora and Grammatical Relations in Mandarin', in T. Givon (ed.) Grammatical Relations: A Functional Perspective, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997, 281-319.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.
Nida, E. A. Translating Meaning. California: English Language Institute, 1982.
Nida, E. A. Language, Culture, and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign language Education Press, 1999.
Neubert, A. Text and Translation.Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopadie, 1985.
Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Pinkham, J. The.Translator's Guide to English. Beijing: Foreign language. Teaching and Research Press, 1998.
Quirk, R. et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign. Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Tomlin, R S. (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1987.
Trosborg, A. (ed.) Text Typology and Translation Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997.
Wilss, W. The Science of Translation: Problem and Method. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Wilss, W. 'Translation equivalence'. In Noss, R. B. (ed.) Ten papers on translation. Singapore: Seameo, 1982.
Yuen Ren Chao. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. California: University of California Press, 1968.
曹逢甫著，谢天蔚译，《主题在汉语中的功能研究——迈向语段分析的第一步》，北京语文出版社，1995。
陈定安，《英汉比较与翻译》，香港：商务印书馆，1988。
陈治安，刘家荣，文旭编著，《英汉对比语用学与英语教学》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002。
陈用仪，“主述位切分与翻译的准确与流畅”，《翻译通讯》，1986，(4)。
方梦之，《英语汉译实践与技巧》，天津：天津科技翻译出版公司，1994。
高远，《对比分析与错误分析》，北京：北京航空航天大学出版社，2002。
胡壮麟，方琰，《功能语言学在中国的进展》， 北京：清华大学出版社，1997。
胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄，《系统功能语法概论》，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1989。
蒋坚松，《英汉对比与汉译英研究》，长沙：湖南人民出版社，2002。
靳洪刚，‘从汉语“把”字句看语言分类规律在第二语言习得过程中的作用’，《语言教学与研究》，1993，(2)。
金旭东，“汉语主题结构与英汉互译”，《外国语》，1992，(6)。
柯平，《英汉与汉英翻译教程》，北京：北京大学出版社，1991。
李瑞华编著，《英汉语言文化对比研究》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1996。
李运兴，《语篇翻译引论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2000。
李运兴，‘“主位”概念在翻译研究中的应用’，《外语与外语教学》，2002，(7)。
吕叔湘，《汉语语法文集》，北京：商务印书馆，1996。
连淑能，《汉英对比研究》，北京：高等教育出版社，1993。
刘宓庆，《汉英对比研究与翻译》，江西：江西教育出版社，1992。
刘宓庆，《翻译与语言哲学》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001。
刘士聪，余东，“试论以主/述位作翻译单位”，《外国语》，2000，(3)。
刘重德，《文学翻译十讲》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1991。
刘重德编著，《英汉语比较研究》，长沙：湖南科学技术出版社，1994。
潘文国，《汉英语对比纲要》，北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1997。
彭宣维，《英汉语篇综合对比》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000。
石毓智，《语法的形式和理据》，南昌：江西教育出版社，2001。
王福祥编著，《对比语言学论文集》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1992。
王力，《中国现代语法》，北京：商务印书馆，1985。
萧立明，《新译学论稿》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001。
熊学亮．，《英汉前指现象对比》，上海：复旦大学出版社，1999。
徐烈炯，刘丹青，《话题的结构与功能》，上海：上海教育出版社，1998。
徐盛桓．，“主位和述位”，《外语教学与研究》，1982，(1)。
徐盛桓．，“再论主位和述位”，《外语教学与研究》，1985，(4)。
杨明，“话题与译文的连贯”，《外语研究》，2002，(6)。
余渭深，李红，彭宣维，《语言的功能——系统、语用和认知》，重庆：重庆大学出版社，1998。
张今，张克定，《英汉语信息结构对比研究》，开封：河南大学出版社，1998。
赵元任，《汉语口语语法》，北京：商务印书馆，1979。
朱永生，《语言·语篇·语境》，北京：清华大学出版社，1993。
朱永牛，严世清，《系统功能语言学多维思考》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001。
Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longrnan Group LTD, 1991.
Birch, C. Anthology of Chinese Literature, vol. 2. New York: Grive Press.Inc, 1972.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Callow, K. Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God. Michigan: Zondervan.1974.
Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic FunctionaI Linguistics. London: Pinter, 1996.
Fang Yan, Edward McDonald & Cheng Musheng. 'On Theme in Chinese: From Clause to Discourse', in Hasan, R. & Fries, P. H. (eds) On Subject and Theme-A Discourse Functional Perspective. Philadelphia: John. Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995, 235-273.
Fox, B. (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1996.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Givon, T. (ed.) Topic Continuity in Discourse-A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1983.
Givon, T. (ed.) Discourse and Syntax, Syntax and semantics 12. NY: Academic Press, 1979.
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. A Student's Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman, 1990.
Hasan, R. & Fries, P. H. (eds) On Subject and Theme-A Discourse Functional Perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Jin Di & Nida, E. A. On Translation with special reference to Chinese and English. Beijing: China Translation and Publishing Corporation. 1984.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 'The environments of translation'. In Steiner, E. and Yallop, C.(eds) Beyond content. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.
Ming-Ming Pu, 'Zero Anaphora and Grammatical Relations in Mandarin', in T. Givon (ed.) Grammatical Relations: A Functional Perspective, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997, 281-319.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.
Nida, E. A. Translating Meaning. California: English Language Institute, 1982.
Nida, E. A. Language, Culture, and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign language Education Press, 1999.
Neubert, A. Text and Translation.Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopadie, 1985.
Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Pinkham, J. The.Translator's Guide to English. Beijing: Foreign language. Teaching and Research Press, 1998.
Quirk, R. et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign. Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Tomlin, R S. (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1987.
Trosborg, A. (ed.) Text Typology and Translation Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997.
Wilss, W. The Science of Translation: Problem and Method. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Wilss, W. 'Translation equivalence'. In Noss, R. B. (ed.) Ten papers on translation. Singapore: Seameo, 1982.
Yuen Ren Chao. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. California: University of California Press, 1968.
曹逢甫著，谢天蔚译，《主题在汉语中的功能研究——迈向语段分析的第一步》，北京语文出版社，1995。
陈定安，《英汉比较与翻译》，香港：商务印书馆，1988。
陈治安，刘家荣，文旭编著，《英汉对比语用学与英语教学》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002。
陈用仪，“主述位切分与翻译的准确与流畅”，《翻译通讯》，1986，(4)。
方梦之，《英语汉译实践与技巧》，天津：天津科技翻译出版公司，1994。
高远，《对比分析与错误分析》，北京：北京航空航天大学出版社，2002。
胡壮麟，方琰，《功能语言学在中国的进展》， 北京：清华大学出版社，1997。
胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄，《系统功能语法概论》，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1989。
蒋坚松，《英汉对比与汉译英研究》，长沙：湖南人民出版社，2002。
靳洪刚，‘从汉语“把”字句看语言分类规律在第二语言习得过程中的作用’，《语言教学与研究》，1993，(2)。
金旭东，“汉语主题结构与英汉互译”，《外国语》，1992，(6)。
柯平，《英汉与汉英翻译教程》，北京：北京大学出版社，1991。
李瑞华编著，《英汉语言文化对比研究》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1996。
李运兴，《语篇翻译引论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2000。
李运兴，‘“主位”概念在翻译研究中的应用’，《外语与外语教学》，2002，(7)。
吕叔湘，《汉语语法文集》，北京：商务印书馆，1996。
连淑能，《汉英对比研究》，北京：高等教育出版社，1993。
刘宓庆，《汉英对比研究与翻译》，江西：江西教育出版社，1992。
刘宓庆，《翻译与语言哲学》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001。
刘士聪，余东，“试论以主/述位作翻译单位”，《外国语》，2000，(3)。
刘重德，《文学翻译十讲》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1991。
刘重德编著，《英汉语比较研究》，长沙：湖南科学技术出版社，1994。
潘文国，《汉英语对比纲要》，北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1997。
彭宣维，《英汉语篇综合对比》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000。
石毓智，《语法的形式和理据》，南昌：江西教育出版社，2001。
王福祥编著，《对比语言学论文集》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1992。
王力，《中国现代语法》，北京：商务印书馆，1985。
萧立明，《新译学论稿》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001。
熊学亮．，《英汉前指现象对比》，上海：复旦大学出版社，1999。
徐烈炯，刘丹青，《话题的结构与功能》，上海：上海教育出版社，1998。
徐盛桓．，“主位和述位”，《外语教学与研究》，1982，(1)。
徐盛桓．，“再论主位和述位”，《外语教学与研究》，1985，(4)。
杨明，“话题与译文的连贯”，《外语研究》，2002，(6)。
余渭深，李红，彭宣维，《语言的功能——系统、语用和认知》，重庆：重庆大学出版社，1998。
张今，张克定，《英汉语信息结构对比研究》，开封：河南大学出版社，1998。
赵元任，《汉语口语语法》，北京：商务印书馆，1979。
朱永生，《语言·语篇·语境》，北京：清华大学出版社，1993。
朱永牛，严世清，《系统功能语言学多维思考》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001。