基于篇章的大学英语教学途径
|
摘要
为适应21世纪我国培养高素质人才的需要,国家教育部在《大学英语教学大纲》(修订本)的基础上制定了新的《大学英语课程教学要求》。《大学英语课程教学要求》采取了不同于《大学英语教学大纲》(修订本)的标准,把大学阶段的英语教学分为三个层次,即一般要求、较高要求和更高要求,重点在于交际能力的培养,使学生能自如地运用英语口语和书面语进行交流。在这种形势下,外语师资培训和自身建设的重要性与日俱增。
传统的教学理念是把外语当作知识体系来传授,而不是把它作为综合技能进行训练。因此,过去在中国的大学英语教学中很盛行语法翻译法和听说法。而如今一提到提高交际能力,人们马上想到采用交际法进行教学实践。而应用语言学家批判交际法把交际能力等同与构造词汇形式和句型的能力,将语言能力转换到单纯的交际能力概念上,却不能真正提高学生的交际能力。因此,在大学英语教学中采用适当的教学法显得极为重要。
通过对比五种主要的英语教学法的特点,即语法翻译法、直接法、情景法、听说法和交际法,可以看到篇章教学法在提高学生的交际能力方面,比传统的教学方式有更好的效果。
篇章教学法研究的对象是使用中的语言,其主要特点包括:篇章教学法是以篇章语言学为理论基础,认为语言的功能只有在篇章环境中才能更好地得以实现。篇章语言观的核心是学习者应该了解语言的语法形式与交际功能的关系。学习者应该了解语音、词汇、语法等语言要素是如何相互联系、共同组织和建构篇章的。篇章教学法认为语言的应用能力包括听说读写译等各个方面的能力,它们不是彼此孤立的,而是完全融为一体的,具有同等重要的地位。学习者在学习语言的同时还要学习语言使用的语境和文化背景。在使用篇章教学法的课堂中,教学材料来自于真实使用中的口语和书面语篇章,语言教师是指导者,学生才是主体。
篇章语言学运用诸如理论语言学、社会学、心理学、人类学、哲学研究中各种有关的原则,建立自己的理论与方法。它所汲取的诸理论原则都有一个共同点,即着眼于使用中的语言,研究人们如何运用真实的语言而不是人为杜撰的句子。正因为如此,篇章语言学理论一出现立即引起了语言教学界的兴趣,因为语言教学者在设计教学材料时,在培养学习者熟悉运用目的语进行操练和活动时,以及在决定某一现成材料是否适于教学时,首先考虑的就是人们如何运用实际语言的问题(McCarthy, 2002:1)。
本篇论文的研究就是为了满足中国大学英语教学的实际需要,从大量的篇章语言学理论成果中选取对教学有所帮助的基本理论进行介绍并探讨其在教学中如何应用,启发教学者对一些理论观点做出批评性评价,从而加深理解理论与方法的结合方式与结合点,指导教学。因此,从操作性和系统性出发,本篇论文选取了与de Beaugrande和Dressler的《篇章语言学入门》(1981)中提到的篇章性的七个标准相关的理论作为理论基础。de Beaugrande和Dressler (1981)对篇章下了比较严格的定义并做了深入的研究。他们认为,“篇章应定义为满足七个组篇标准的交际事件。若其中任何一个标准没有得到满足,该‘篇章’就不具备交际性。”de Beaugrande和Dressler提出的篇章性的七个标准是:一是衔接,指篇章表层成分即我们看到的实际词汇在一个序列中互相连接的方式;二是连贯,指篇章事件的成分即支撑表层篇章的概念与关系结构互相影响互相关联的方式;三是意图性,指一连串事件应构成一个衔接、连贯的篇章以体现作者的意图;四是可接受性,指一连串事件应构成一个对篇章接受者有用或与接受者相关的衔接、连贯的篇章;五是信息性,指所呈现出的篇章中的事件在期望之中还是期望之外,是已知的还是未知的程度;六是情景性,指使篇章与事件情景相关的因素;七是互文性,指对一个篇章的理解要依赖与对先前遇到过的一些篇章的认知和认识(de Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981:3-10)。
本篇论文的研究目的是为了启发语言教师应用篇章教学法,在理论指导下创造和改进自己的教学思想和方法,企望引起研究者以篇章语言学为理论基础建立一套完整的教学方法的兴趣,使篇章语言学在教学中具有很强的可操作性,从而提高学习者的交际能力,达到《大学英语课程教学要求》提出的要求。对于每个篇章标准,本篇论文都是先介绍与之相关的理论,随后通过例子来说明理论对教学的启示。由于启示不止是一个方面,往往能够帮助教师指导学生提高不同的交际能力,因此只能提供那些最容易在课堂操作的活动作为例证。
我们相信在此领域做更多更深的研究与实践,具有理论和教学实践的双重价值。语言的基本功能是进行社会交际,是完成社会交际任务。应用篇章教学法,可以开阔教师和学生的视野,使学生在今后的工作和社会交往中能用英语进行有效的信息交流,提高其综合技能,以适应我国社会发展和国际交流的需要。
In 2004, the Ministry of Education made a new Requirements for College English Teaching whose standards for learner’s competence are much higher than those in College English Teaching Syllabus. Its essence rests on the development of communicative competence. Under this situation, the importance of teacher-training is increasing.
Compared with the characteristics of five teaching approaches related to college English teaching in Chinese context , namely, the Grammar-translation approach, the Direct approach, the Situational approach, the Audio-lingual approach, and the Communicative approach, the Text-based approach has clear advantages over the other approaches in achieving the teaching and learning goal of improving the college students’communicative competence of English use.
The main characteristics of the Text-based approach include: the Text-based approach rises from the theory of text linguistics; it is believed that the functions of language are often best understood in a text environment; the relationship between grammatical form and communicative function is central to a text view of language; all the five skills of language, namely, listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating are of the same importance; the teacher is the instructor and the learners are the center of classroom activities.
Text linguistics focuses on language in use, in how real people use real language. Among many text linguistic theories, the thesis selects those related to the seven standards of textuality put forward by de Beaugrande and Dressler in their co-work Introduction to Text Linguistics in 1981. These theories are practical and systematic for college English teaching. The seven standards are cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality. For each standard, the theories related to it are introduced first and then come the implications of those theories for college English teaching with illustrations.
It is firmly believed that further research in this field will be of theoretical and educational significance. We hope to stimulate thoughts on the Text-based approach and therefore to use the approach in teaching practice to help improve the learners’communicative competence and meet the Requirements for College English Teaching.
传统的教学理念是把外语当作知识体系来传授,而不是把它作为综合技能进行训练。因此,过去在中国的大学英语教学中很盛行语法翻译法和听说法。而如今一提到提高交际能力,人们马上想到采用交际法进行教学实践。而应用语言学家批判交际法把交际能力等同与构造词汇形式和句型的能力,将语言能力转换到单纯的交际能力概念上,却不能真正提高学生的交际能力。因此,在大学英语教学中采用适当的教学法显得极为重要。
通过对比五种主要的英语教学法的特点,即语法翻译法、直接法、情景法、听说法和交际法,可以看到篇章教学法在提高学生的交际能力方面,比传统的教学方式有更好的效果。
篇章教学法研究的对象是使用中的语言,其主要特点包括:篇章教学法是以篇章语言学为理论基础,认为语言的功能只有在篇章环境中才能更好地得以实现。篇章语言观的核心是学习者应该了解语言的语法形式与交际功能的关系。学习者应该了解语音、词汇、语法等语言要素是如何相互联系、共同组织和建构篇章的。篇章教学法认为语言的应用能力包括听说读写译等各个方面的能力,它们不是彼此孤立的,而是完全融为一体的,具有同等重要的地位。学习者在学习语言的同时还要学习语言使用的语境和文化背景。在使用篇章教学法的课堂中,教学材料来自于真实使用中的口语和书面语篇章,语言教师是指导者,学生才是主体。
篇章语言学运用诸如理论语言学、社会学、心理学、人类学、哲学研究中各种有关的原则,建立自己的理论与方法。它所汲取的诸理论原则都有一个共同点,即着眼于使用中的语言,研究人们如何运用真实的语言而不是人为杜撰的句子。正因为如此,篇章语言学理论一出现立即引起了语言教学界的兴趣,因为语言教学者在设计教学材料时,在培养学习者熟悉运用目的语进行操练和活动时,以及在决定某一现成材料是否适于教学时,首先考虑的就是人们如何运用实际语言的问题(McCarthy, 2002:1)。
本篇论文的研究就是为了满足中国大学英语教学的实际需要,从大量的篇章语言学理论成果中选取对教学有所帮助的基本理论进行介绍并探讨其在教学中如何应用,启发教学者对一些理论观点做出批评性评价,从而加深理解理论与方法的结合方式与结合点,指导教学。因此,从操作性和系统性出发,本篇论文选取了与de Beaugrande和Dressler的《篇章语言学入门》(1981)中提到的篇章性的七个标准相关的理论作为理论基础。de Beaugrande和Dressler (1981)对篇章下了比较严格的定义并做了深入的研究。他们认为,“篇章应定义为满足七个组篇标准的交际事件。若其中任何一个标准没有得到满足,该‘篇章’就不具备交际性。”de Beaugrande和Dressler提出的篇章性的七个标准是:一是衔接,指篇章表层成分即我们看到的实际词汇在一个序列中互相连接的方式;二是连贯,指篇章事件的成分即支撑表层篇章的概念与关系结构互相影响互相关联的方式;三是意图性,指一连串事件应构成一个衔接、连贯的篇章以体现作者的意图;四是可接受性,指一连串事件应构成一个对篇章接受者有用或与接受者相关的衔接、连贯的篇章;五是信息性,指所呈现出的篇章中的事件在期望之中还是期望之外,是已知的还是未知的程度;六是情景性,指使篇章与事件情景相关的因素;七是互文性,指对一个篇章的理解要依赖与对先前遇到过的一些篇章的认知和认识(de Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981:3-10)。
本篇论文的研究目的是为了启发语言教师应用篇章教学法,在理论指导下创造和改进自己的教学思想和方法,企望引起研究者以篇章语言学为理论基础建立一套完整的教学方法的兴趣,使篇章语言学在教学中具有很强的可操作性,从而提高学习者的交际能力,达到《大学英语课程教学要求》提出的要求。对于每个篇章标准,本篇论文都是先介绍与之相关的理论,随后通过例子来说明理论对教学的启示。由于启示不止是一个方面,往往能够帮助教师指导学生提高不同的交际能力,因此只能提供那些最容易在课堂操作的活动作为例证。
我们相信在此领域做更多更深的研究与实践,具有理论和教学实践的双重价值。语言的基本功能是进行社会交际,是完成社会交际任务。应用篇章教学法,可以开阔教师和学生的视野,使学生在今后的工作和社会交往中能用英语进行有效的信息交流,提高其综合技能,以适应我国社会发展和国际交流的需要。
In 2004, the Ministry of Education made a new Requirements for College English Teaching whose standards for learner’s competence are much higher than those in College English Teaching Syllabus. Its essence rests on the development of communicative competence. Under this situation, the importance of teacher-training is increasing.
Compared with the characteristics of five teaching approaches related to college English teaching in Chinese context , namely, the Grammar-translation approach, the Direct approach, the Situational approach, the Audio-lingual approach, and the Communicative approach, the Text-based approach has clear advantages over the other approaches in achieving the teaching and learning goal of improving the college students’communicative competence of English use.
The main characteristics of the Text-based approach include: the Text-based approach rises from the theory of text linguistics; it is believed that the functions of language are often best understood in a text environment; the relationship between grammatical form and communicative function is central to a text view of language; all the five skills of language, namely, listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating are of the same importance; the teacher is the instructor and the learners are the center of classroom activities.
Text linguistics focuses on language in use, in how real people use real language. Among many text linguistic theories, the thesis selects those related to the seven standards of textuality put forward by de Beaugrande and Dressler in their co-work Introduction to Text Linguistics in 1981. These theories are practical and systematic for college English teaching. The seven standards are cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality. For each standard, the theories related to it are introduced first and then come the implications of those theories for college English teaching with illustrations.
It is firmly believed that further research in this field will be of theoretical and educational significance. We hope to stimulate thoughts on the Text-based approach and therefore to use the approach in teaching practice to help improve the learners’communicative competence and meet the Requirements for College English Teaching.
引文
[1] Barbara Johnstone. Discourse Analysis [M]. Oxford: Blackwell. 2002.
[2] Bakhtin, M. M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, tr. W. McGee). Austin: University of Texas Press. 1986.
[3] Berkenkotter, C, Huckin, T. N., and Ackerman, J. Conventions, conversations, and the writer: A case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9-44. 1988.
[4] Breen, M., and C. N. Candlin. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics. 1980.
[5] Brown, G. & Yule, G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
[6] Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Boston: MIT Press. 1965.
[7] Corder, S. P. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1973.
[8] Cook, G. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989.
[9] Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1985.
[10] de Beaugrande, R. & W. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. 1981.
[11] Enkvist, N. Coherence, pseudo-coherence and non-coherence. In J. Oastman (eds.), Cohesion and Semantics. Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi Foundation. 1978.
[12] Firth, J.R. Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. 1957.
[13] Fries, P. Lexical Patterns in a text and interpretation. In K. Jankowsky (ed.) Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 1986.
[14] Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press. 1986.
[15] Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold. 1973.
[16] Halliday, M. A. K. Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.1978.
[17] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan Language, Context and Text: Victoria: Deakin University Press. 1985a.
[18] Halliday, M.A.K. Dimensions of Discourse. Analysis: Grammar, in Van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 2: Dimensions of discourse. London: Academic Press. 1985b.
[19] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 1985.
[20] Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Socio-Semiotic Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press. 1985.
[21] Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press. 1994.
[22] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 1976.
[23] Hatim, Basil. Communications across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2000.
[24] Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1991.
[25] Hymes, D. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1972.
[26] Grice, Paul. Logic and Concersation. In Cole (Ed). 1975.
[27] Kristeva, J. The Kristeva Reader (ed. T. Moi). Oxford: Blackwell. 1986.
[28] James R. Martin & Christian Matthiessen & Clare Painter. Working withFunctional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold. 1997.
[29] Labov, W. Language in the Inner City. Oxford:Basil Blackerll. 1972.
[30] Lakoff, R. Fuzzy Grammar and the Performance/Competence terminology Game. Ninth CLS. 1973.
[31] James Martin & David Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause [M]. London/New York: Continuum. 2003.
[32] James Paul Gee. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. London: Routledge. 1999.
[33] Malinowski, B. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages Supplement I in C.K. Ogden & L. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning Kegan Paul. 1923.
[34] Malinnowski, Bronislaw. Coral Gardens and Their Magic, Volume 2. London: Allen & Unwin. 1935.
[35] McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.
[36] McCarthy, M. It, this and that. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge. 1994.
[37] McCarthy, M. & R. Carte. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. Beijing: Peking University Press. 2002.
[38] Nunan, D. Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Group. 1993.
[39] Ron Scollon & Suzanne Wong Scollon. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach [M]. Oxford: Blackwell. 1995.
[40] Van Dijk, T. A Text and Context: Explorations in the Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman. 1977.
[41] Van Dijk, T. A. & W. Kintsch. Strategies of Discourse Comprehesion. New York: Academic Press. 1983.
[42] Ventola, E. The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systematic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter. 1987.
[43] Widdowson, H. G. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978.
[44] Widdowson, H. G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. 1979.
[45] 丁言仁,《话语分析》[M],南京:南京师范大学出版社,2000。
[46] 教育部高等教育司,《大学英语课程教学要求》(试行)[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004。
[47] 胡曙中,《英语语篇语言学研究》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005。
[48] 胡壮麟, 朱永生, 张德禄,《系统功能语法概论》[M],长沙: 湖南教育出版社,2005。
[49] 胡壮麟,《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,1994。
[50] 黄国文,《语篇分析概要》[M],长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988。
[51] 黄国文,《语篇分析的理论与实践》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001。
[52] 李悦娥,范宏雅,《话语分析》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
[53] 李战子,《话语的人际意义研究》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
[54] 刘虹,《会话结构分析》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2004。
[55] 刘辰诞,《教学篇章语言学》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
[56] 鲁忠义,彭聃龄,《语篇理解研究》[M],北京:北京语言大学出版社,2003。
[57] 苗兴伟,“论衔接与连贯的关系”[J],上海:《外国语》,(4)1998。
[58] 彭宣维.,《英汉语篇综合对比》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
[59] 裴文,《现代英语语境学》[M],合肥:安徽大学出版社,2000。
[60] 钱敏汝,《篇章语用学概论》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001。
[61] 张德禄, 苗兴伟, 李学宁,《功能语言学与外语教学》[M],北京: 外语教学与研究出版社,2005。
[62] 徐玉臣,“英汉语言主要衔接手段的对比分析”[J],山东:《山东外语教学》,(2) 1996。
[63] 许余龙,《篇章回指的功能语用探索》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004。
[64] 张德禄,刘汝山,《语篇连贯语衔接理论的发展及应用》[M],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,2003。
[65] 郑立民,“衔接手段连贯性与篇章—试论英语书面语中句子的连接问题”[J],上海:《外国语》,(1)1988。
[66] 朱永生, 郑立信, 苗兴伟,《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》[M],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,2001。
[67] 朱永生,严世清,《世纪之交论功能》[C],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,2002。
[2] Bakhtin, M. M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, tr. W. McGee). Austin: University of Texas Press. 1986.
[3] Berkenkotter, C, Huckin, T. N., and Ackerman, J. Conventions, conversations, and the writer: A case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9-44. 1988.
[4] Breen, M., and C. N. Candlin. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics. 1980.
[5] Brown, G. & Yule, G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
[6] Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Boston: MIT Press. 1965.
[7] Corder, S. P. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1973.
[8] Cook, G. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989.
[9] Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1985.
[10] de Beaugrande, R. & W. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. 1981.
[11] Enkvist, N. Coherence, pseudo-coherence and non-coherence. In J. Oastman (eds.), Cohesion and Semantics. Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi Foundation. 1978.
[12] Firth, J.R. Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. 1957.
[13] Fries, P. Lexical Patterns in a text and interpretation. In K. Jankowsky (ed.) Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 1986.
[14] Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press. 1986.
[15] Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold. 1973.
[16] Halliday, M. A. K. Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.1978.
[17] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan Language, Context and Text: Victoria: Deakin University Press. 1985a.
[18] Halliday, M.A.K. Dimensions of Discourse. Analysis: Grammar, in Van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 2: Dimensions of discourse. London: Academic Press. 1985b.
[19] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 1985.
[20] Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Socio-Semiotic Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press. 1985.
[21] Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press. 1994.
[22] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 1976.
[23] Hatim, Basil. Communications across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2000.
[24] Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1991.
[25] Hymes, D. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1972.
[26] Grice, Paul. Logic and Concersation. In Cole (Ed). 1975.
[27] Kristeva, J. The Kristeva Reader (ed. T. Moi). Oxford: Blackwell. 1986.
[28] James R. Martin & Christian Matthiessen & Clare Painter. Working withFunctional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold. 1997.
[29] Labov, W. Language in the Inner City. Oxford:Basil Blackerll. 1972.
[30] Lakoff, R. Fuzzy Grammar and the Performance/Competence terminology Game. Ninth CLS. 1973.
[31] James Martin & David Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause [M]. London/New York: Continuum. 2003.
[32] James Paul Gee. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. London: Routledge. 1999.
[33] Malinowski, B. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages Supplement I in C.K. Ogden & L. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning Kegan Paul. 1923.
[34] Malinnowski, Bronislaw. Coral Gardens and Their Magic, Volume 2. London: Allen & Unwin. 1935.
[35] McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.
[36] McCarthy, M. It, this and that. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge. 1994.
[37] McCarthy, M. & R. Carte. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. Beijing: Peking University Press. 2002.
[38] Nunan, D. Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Group. 1993.
[39] Ron Scollon & Suzanne Wong Scollon. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach [M]. Oxford: Blackwell. 1995.
[40] Van Dijk, T. A Text and Context: Explorations in the Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman. 1977.
[41] Van Dijk, T. A. & W. Kintsch. Strategies of Discourse Comprehesion. New York: Academic Press. 1983.
[42] Ventola, E. The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systematic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter. 1987.
[43] Widdowson, H. G. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978.
[44] Widdowson, H. G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. 1979.
[45] 丁言仁,《话语分析》[M],南京:南京师范大学出版社,2000。
[46] 教育部高等教育司,《大学英语课程教学要求》(试行)[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004。
[47] 胡曙中,《英语语篇语言学研究》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005。
[48] 胡壮麟, 朱永生, 张德禄,《系统功能语法概论》[M],长沙: 湖南教育出版社,2005。
[49] 胡壮麟,《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,1994。
[50] 黄国文,《语篇分析概要》[M],长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988。
[51] 黄国文,《语篇分析的理论与实践》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001。
[52] 李悦娥,范宏雅,《话语分析》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
[53] 李战子,《话语的人际意义研究》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
[54] 刘虹,《会话结构分析》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2004。
[55] 刘辰诞,《教学篇章语言学》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
[56] 鲁忠义,彭聃龄,《语篇理解研究》[M],北京:北京语言大学出版社,2003。
[57] 苗兴伟,“论衔接与连贯的关系”[J],上海:《外国语》,(4)1998。
[58] 彭宣维.,《英汉语篇综合对比》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
[59] 裴文,《现代英语语境学》[M],合肥:安徽大学出版社,2000。
[60] 钱敏汝,《篇章语用学概论》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001。
[61] 张德禄, 苗兴伟, 李学宁,《功能语言学与外语教学》[M],北京: 外语教学与研究出版社,2005。
[62] 徐玉臣,“英汉语言主要衔接手段的对比分析”[J],山东:《山东外语教学》,(2) 1996。
[63] 许余龙,《篇章回指的功能语用探索》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004。
[64] 张德禄,刘汝山,《语篇连贯语衔接理论的发展及应用》[M],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,2003。
[65] 郑立民,“衔接手段连贯性与篇章—试论英语书面语中句子的连接问题”[J],上海:《外国语》,(1)1988。
[66] 朱永生, 郑立信, 苗兴伟,《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》[M],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,2001。
[67] 朱永生,严世清,《世纪之交论功能》[C],上海: 上海外语教育出版社,2002。