主体间性视阈下的译者元语篇意识构建研究
|
摘要
本论文探讨了在语言哲学视阈下,元语篇的主体间性本质及其在语篇翻译中对译者元语篇意识构建的角色定位作用问题。
研究首先采用历时的方法,对元语篇的语言哲学本质进行了阐述。通过对西方哲学史的主体性问题研究的梳理回顾,阐明了人的主体性是语言建构的,是使用中的语言提供了主体的表达形式,产生了人的主体性。语言建构了人的主体性并使人的主体间性成为可能,而人从主体性走向主体间性是哲学的必然。元语篇是语言活动的层级形式,任何形式的语言活动都包括主语篇和元语篇两个层面。言语话题的主题信息和指示内容通过主语篇来表达,它表征的是言语活动的基本内容。,在这个层面上,言语主体表征言语活动的基本内容,因而建构人的主体性。但是言语主体的命题态度、语篇意义和人际意义是通过元语篇来构建的,言语主体根据交际需要来组织和监控言语活动的生成和发展的程序信息,表达的是程序意义,因此在这个层面产生了主体间性。
本论文从语篇修辞互动的角度对元语篇的概念和功能进行了多角度的分析探讨,对元语篇的理论基础和发展脉络进行了历时的梳理和回顾。对元语篇的言语行为、语用学和关联理论基础与语篇翻译的相关性问题进行了一定的论证。
论文对译者主体的元语篇意识构建研究是在语篇语言学的框架下展开的。语篇中的元语篇标记是作者构建语篇的一种策略。通过语篇中的外显语言机制-元语篇标记,作者明示了语篇的命题信息、对读者的期待和关注。在语篇翻译中,这些元语篇标记对译者再现原文语篇策略,构建与译文读者的期待视野吻合的译语语篇起着举足轻重的作用,他们是语篇中不可或缺的语篇资源。
研究采用定量和定性相结合的实证方法,对主体间性视阈下元语篇意识对译者语篇意识构建的角色定位作用问题进行了对比性的研究。综合运用量化统计和分析描述的方法,对信息类语篇《物种起源》和《孙子兵法》中的元语篇标记使用情况做出对比研究,分析了在主体间性理论视阈下,译者运用元语篇标记识别原文语篇作者的意图和命题信息,并在译文语篇中通过元语篇标记,成功构建符合目的语读者需求的译文语篇的问题。
研究结果表明,翻译是通过语言进行的各主体间的对话与交往活动,涉及多个主体的共同有效参与,只有协调好作者、译者与读者的关系,使共在的自我在翻译活动中充分发挥作用,以达到对客观事物的共同理解与认识,协调彼此的行动,才能顺利地使得交往理性在以文本为对象的翻译活动中得以贯彻。而以文本为对象的翻译活动中元语篇的存在可以帮助译者组织语篇、连接命题,保证语篇的完整性。由主语篇和元语篇共同构成的语篇意识既能体现译者的语篇组织能力,即译者在翻译活动中遣词造句和连句成篇的能力,也是使译者构建既和原文文体风格相一致,又连贯得体的译文语篇的不可或缺的重要手段。元语篇为译者的语篇意识构建提供了基础,它使译者的语篇意识构建具体化了。语篇翻译中,译者的元语篇意识使译者的视界与作者、读者的视界融合,使各主体的间性得到充分张扬,从而使译文得到生生不息的生命力。
This dissertation is a study of the construction of translator’s metadiscourse awareness in text translation from the perspective of intersubjectivity.
The study first of all presents a long-existing dispute about the concept of metadiscourse and the vagueness of its Chinese term. By reviewing the theoretical basis and development trend of metadiscourse, the study has pointed out that Relevance Theory, Pragmatics and Speech Act are the concern of this dissertation as they are also the fundamental supporting of text translation. The study has also investigated the philosophical nature of metadiscourse through a diachronical way by extensively evidencing the historical development of subjectivity research in western philosophy. In this respect, it has introduced a rather profound concordance that man’s subjectivity is formed through language and it is language which helped to caster the formation of subjectivity and which in turn helped to characterize man’s subjectivity. Language promoted the development of man’s subjectivity and subjectivity in turn pushed the booming of intersubjectivity.
The study also justifies that intersubjectivity is the fundamental feature of metadiscourse. Metadiscourse has the nature of hierarchy. On the stratum level, metadiscourse can be categorized into primary discourse and metadiscourse. Primary discourse concerns topical information, and helps to convey the primary theme information of a discourse. On this level, as it concerns discourse proposition, it helps form man’s subjectivity. Yet, the author’s attitude of discourse subject, discourse proposition and interpersonal relationship has to be constructed through metadiscourse. It is discourse subject who manipulates and supervises the procedure information of the formation and development of discourse activity. It emphasizes the procedure meaning of a discourse, thus intersubjectivity is formed on this level.
The study has highlighted discourse rhetorical interaction, offering a full account of the rhetorical, pragmatic and context functions of metadiscourse. It has pinpointed that intertextuality is a unique characteristic of metadiscourse which made the conversation and interaction between the author, translator and reader possible.
The study also stresses that the translator subjectivity through the construction of his metadiscourse awareness is performed under the framework of text linguistics. Metadiscourse is a kind of text strategy of the author. Through those extroverted language mechanics-metadiscourse, readers can clearly signpost text structure and propositional intention of the author. The author’s attitude and readers’expectation to the text can be exemplified through those mechanics. In the case of text translation, metadiscourse markers can offer the translator extroverted evidences to reappear the original text strategies, to construct a more relevant, coherent and more unified text.
By employing both qualitative and quantitative research methods, the dissertation presents a contrastive analysis of the orientation function of metadiscourse in constructing the translator’s metadiscourse awareness from the perspective of intersubjectivity. It synthesizes statistical and descriptive analysis in the empirical research of The Origin of Species and The Art of War, both in its original version and the translated version. Through the comparative examination of metadiscourse allocations in the two corpuses, the study has showed that metadiscourse markers can help reader/translator identify discourse proposition information and the author’s discourse intention. They can also manipulate the relationship between the writer/translator and readers. With the help of these extroverted evident language mechanics, translators may convey the original texts maximally and can successfully achieve harmonious interaction between the writer, readers and themselves.
The study finally draws a conclusion that translation is a kind of interaction and conversation between subjects involved. The success of translation depends on the unified participation of all the parties. Only through the mediation and the full participation of all the parties involved in translation activities, can a more objective, shared understanding and recognition between those parties be achieved from the perspective of text translation. Furthermore, the existence of metadiscourse in text translation can serve as a walking signpost for translator in achieving the organization, coherence and unity of a text. Metadiscourse awareness is an important aspect of translators’competence in organization, diction, as well as coherence. It is also a kind of important mechanics to ensure the translator to construct a unified text in style, unification and coherence in the process of text translation. Metadiscourse lays the foundation of text awareness for translator and enables his text awareness objectified and concretized. In text translation, translator’s metadiscourse awareness can be established through the identification of intersubjectivity within all the parties involved. Metadiscourse awareness helps the translator achieve a more harmonious interaction between subjects involved and helps infuse new life into the translated version.
研究首先采用历时的方法,对元语篇的语言哲学本质进行了阐述。通过对西方哲学史的主体性问题研究的梳理回顾,阐明了人的主体性是语言建构的,是使用中的语言提供了主体的表达形式,产生了人的主体性。语言建构了人的主体性并使人的主体间性成为可能,而人从主体性走向主体间性是哲学的必然。元语篇是语言活动的层级形式,任何形式的语言活动都包括主语篇和元语篇两个层面。言语话题的主题信息和指示内容通过主语篇来表达,它表征的是言语活动的基本内容。,在这个层面上,言语主体表征言语活动的基本内容,因而建构人的主体性。但是言语主体的命题态度、语篇意义和人际意义是通过元语篇来构建的,言语主体根据交际需要来组织和监控言语活动的生成和发展的程序信息,表达的是程序意义,因此在这个层面产生了主体间性。
本论文从语篇修辞互动的角度对元语篇的概念和功能进行了多角度的分析探讨,对元语篇的理论基础和发展脉络进行了历时的梳理和回顾。对元语篇的言语行为、语用学和关联理论基础与语篇翻译的相关性问题进行了一定的论证。
论文对译者主体的元语篇意识构建研究是在语篇语言学的框架下展开的。语篇中的元语篇标记是作者构建语篇的一种策略。通过语篇中的外显语言机制-元语篇标记,作者明示了语篇的命题信息、对读者的期待和关注。在语篇翻译中,这些元语篇标记对译者再现原文语篇策略,构建与译文读者的期待视野吻合的译语语篇起着举足轻重的作用,他们是语篇中不可或缺的语篇资源。
研究采用定量和定性相结合的实证方法,对主体间性视阈下元语篇意识对译者语篇意识构建的角色定位作用问题进行了对比性的研究。综合运用量化统计和分析描述的方法,对信息类语篇《物种起源》和《孙子兵法》中的元语篇标记使用情况做出对比研究,分析了在主体间性理论视阈下,译者运用元语篇标记识别原文语篇作者的意图和命题信息,并在译文语篇中通过元语篇标记,成功构建符合目的语读者需求的译文语篇的问题。
研究结果表明,翻译是通过语言进行的各主体间的对话与交往活动,涉及多个主体的共同有效参与,只有协调好作者、译者与读者的关系,使共在的自我在翻译活动中充分发挥作用,以达到对客观事物的共同理解与认识,协调彼此的行动,才能顺利地使得交往理性在以文本为对象的翻译活动中得以贯彻。而以文本为对象的翻译活动中元语篇的存在可以帮助译者组织语篇、连接命题,保证语篇的完整性。由主语篇和元语篇共同构成的语篇意识既能体现译者的语篇组织能力,即译者在翻译活动中遣词造句和连句成篇的能力,也是使译者构建既和原文文体风格相一致,又连贯得体的译文语篇的不可或缺的重要手段。元语篇为译者的语篇意识构建提供了基础,它使译者的语篇意识构建具体化了。语篇翻译中,译者的元语篇意识使译者的视界与作者、读者的视界融合,使各主体的间性得到充分张扬,从而使译文得到生生不息的生命力。
This dissertation is a study of the construction of translator’s metadiscourse awareness in text translation from the perspective of intersubjectivity.
The study first of all presents a long-existing dispute about the concept of metadiscourse and the vagueness of its Chinese term. By reviewing the theoretical basis and development trend of metadiscourse, the study has pointed out that Relevance Theory, Pragmatics and Speech Act are the concern of this dissertation as they are also the fundamental supporting of text translation. The study has also investigated the philosophical nature of metadiscourse through a diachronical way by extensively evidencing the historical development of subjectivity research in western philosophy. In this respect, it has introduced a rather profound concordance that man’s subjectivity is formed through language and it is language which helped to caster the formation of subjectivity and which in turn helped to characterize man’s subjectivity. Language promoted the development of man’s subjectivity and subjectivity in turn pushed the booming of intersubjectivity.
The study also justifies that intersubjectivity is the fundamental feature of metadiscourse. Metadiscourse has the nature of hierarchy. On the stratum level, metadiscourse can be categorized into primary discourse and metadiscourse. Primary discourse concerns topical information, and helps to convey the primary theme information of a discourse. On this level, as it concerns discourse proposition, it helps form man’s subjectivity. Yet, the author’s attitude of discourse subject, discourse proposition and interpersonal relationship has to be constructed through metadiscourse. It is discourse subject who manipulates and supervises the procedure information of the formation and development of discourse activity. It emphasizes the procedure meaning of a discourse, thus intersubjectivity is formed on this level.
The study has highlighted discourse rhetorical interaction, offering a full account of the rhetorical, pragmatic and context functions of metadiscourse. It has pinpointed that intertextuality is a unique characteristic of metadiscourse which made the conversation and interaction between the author, translator and reader possible.
The study also stresses that the translator subjectivity through the construction of his metadiscourse awareness is performed under the framework of text linguistics. Metadiscourse is a kind of text strategy of the author. Through those extroverted language mechanics-metadiscourse, readers can clearly signpost text structure and propositional intention of the author. The author’s attitude and readers’expectation to the text can be exemplified through those mechanics. In the case of text translation, metadiscourse markers can offer the translator extroverted evidences to reappear the original text strategies, to construct a more relevant, coherent and more unified text.
By employing both qualitative and quantitative research methods, the dissertation presents a contrastive analysis of the orientation function of metadiscourse in constructing the translator’s metadiscourse awareness from the perspective of intersubjectivity. It synthesizes statistical and descriptive analysis in the empirical research of The Origin of Species and The Art of War, both in its original version and the translated version. Through the comparative examination of metadiscourse allocations in the two corpuses, the study has showed that metadiscourse markers can help reader/translator identify discourse proposition information and the author’s discourse intention. They can also manipulate the relationship between the writer/translator and readers. With the help of these extroverted evident language mechanics, translators may convey the original texts maximally and can successfully achieve harmonious interaction between the writer, readers and themselves.
The study finally draws a conclusion that translation is a kind of interaction and conversation between subjects involved. The success of translation depends on the unified participation of all the parties. Only through the mediation and the full participation of all the parties involved in translation activities, can a more objective, shared understanding and recognition between those parties be achieved from the perspective of text translation. Furthermore, the existence of metadiscourse in text translation can serve as a walking signpost for translator in achieving the organization, coherence and unity of a text. Metadiscourse awareness is an important aspect of translators’competence in organization, diction, as well as coherence. It is also a kind of important mechanics to ensure the translator to construct a unified text in style, unification and coherence in the process of text translation. Metadiscourse lays the foundation of text awareness for translator and enables his text awareness objectified and concretized. In text translation, translator’s metadiscourse awareness can be established through the identification of intersubjectivity within all the parties involved. Metadiscourse awareness helps the translator achieve a more harmonious interaction between subjects involved and helps infuse new life into the translated version.
引文
1. (?)del, A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006.
2. Peterlin, A. P. Translating Metadiscourse in Research Articles[J]. Across Language and Cultures 2:9, 2008.
3. Anderson. A. H. Negotiating Coherence in Dialogues[A]. In Gernsbacherr. M. A. & T. Givon. (ed.).Coherence in Spontaneous Text[C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
4. Baker, M. In Other Words-A Coursebook on Translation[M]. London: Routledge, 1992.
5. Bateson, G. Steps to An Ecology of Mind[M]. New York: Ballantine, 1971.
6. Beaugrande, R. de & W. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. London: Longman, 1981(3).
7. Beauvais, P. J. A Speech-Act Theory of Metadiscourse[J]. Written Conununication 6:1, 1989.
8. Bell,R. T.Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice[M]. London: Longman,1991.
9. Benverniste, E. Problems in General Linguistics[M]. FL: University of Miami Press, 1971.
10. Bunton, D. The use of Higher Level Metatext in PhD Theses[J]. English for Specific Purposes 18, 1999.
11. Catford,J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation[M]. London: Oxford University Press,1965.
12. Chafe, W. Discourse Overview[A]. In W. Bright(ed.) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
13. Clark R. & R, Ivani(?). Politics of writing[M]. New York: Routledge, 1997.
14. Conley, T. M. Interpersonal Communication[M]. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1983.
15. Crismore, A. What It Is and How It Is Used in School and Non-school Science Texts[J]. Technical Report 4:12, 1983.
16. Crismore, A. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act[M]. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.
17. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & M. S. Steffensen. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish University Students[J].Written Communication 10, 1993.
18. Dafouz Milne, E. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross linguistic study of newspaper discourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 40:1, 2008.
19. Dahl, T. Textual metadiscourse in research articles:a marker of national culture or of academic discipline(?)[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36,2004.
20. Darwin, C.The Origin of Species[M].New York: P.F. The Collier Press,1909.
21. Elisabeth, L. Active participation within written argumentation: metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 2004.
22. Flower, L. Problem-solving Strategies for Writing (2nd edition)[M]. New York: Harcourt, 1987.
23. Fraser,B. Pragmatic markers[J].Pragmatics 02,1996.
24. Fraser,B. What are Diseourse Markers[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 03,1999.
25. Giles,L. The Art of War[M]. Rutland: Tuttle Publishing,2008.
26. Goffman, E. Forms of Talk[M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
27. Grabe,W. and R. Kaplan. Theory and Practice of Writing[M]. Harlow: Longman,1996.
28. Habermas, J. The theory of Communicative Action[M]. Thomas McCarthy, tr. Beacon Press, 1984.
29. Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
30. Halliday, M. A. K & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman Group UK limited.1976:4.
31. Harris, Z. Linguistics Transformations for Information Retrieval[A]. In Harris, Z (ed.)Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics[C]. Reidel (Dordrecht), 1959/1970.
32. Hatim,B. & I. Mason. Discourse and the Translator[M]. London: Longman,1990.
33. Hatim,B. & I. Mason. The Translator as Communicator[M]. London: Routlege,1997.
34. Hatim, B. Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics[M]. Exeter:University of Exeter Press, 2000.
35. Hatim. B. & I , Mason. Discourse and the Translator[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
36. Hinds, J. Reader versus Writer Responsibility: A new Typology[A]. In U. Connor & R. Kapplan(eds.) Writig across Languages: Analysis of Text[C]. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987.
37. Hoey, M. Textual Interaction[M]. London: Routledge, 2001.
38. Hyland, K. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 1998a.
39. Hyland, K. Exploring corporate rhetoric:Meta-discourse in the CEO’s letter[J]. Journal of Business Communication 35:2, 1998b.
40. Hyland, K. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998c.
41. Hyland, K. Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory textbooks[J]. English for Specific Purposes 18:1, 1999.
42. Hyland, K. Disciplinary discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing[M]. London: Longman, 2000.
43. Hyland. K. Disciplinary interactions: Meta-discourse in L2 postgraduate writing[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 2, 2004.
44. Hyland, K. & P.Tse. Meta-discourse in academic writing: A reappraisal[J]. Applied Linguistics 25:2, 2004.
45. Hyland, K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing[M]. London: Continuum,2005.
46. Jacobson, R. Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In T.A. Sebeok. ( ed. ) . Style in Language[C]. New York:Wiley,1960.
47. Keller, E. Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 3,1979.
48. Kopple, V. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse[J]. College Composition andCommunication 36, 1985.
49. Kopple,V. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse[J]. College Composition and Communication 36:1, 1985.
50. Kopple, V. Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric[A].In Barton, E. & G. Stygall(eds.). Discourse Studies in Composition[C]. New Jersey: Hampton Press, 2002.
51. Ifantidou, E. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse[J]. Journal of pragmatics 37, 2005.
52. Intarapwat, P & M. S. Steffensen. The use of meta-discourse in good and poor ESL Essays[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 1988.
53. Lautamatti, L. Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse[A]. In V. Kohonen and N. Enkvist.(eds.). Text Linguistics, Cognitive Learning, and Language Teaching[C]. Turku, Finland: Abo University, 1978.
54. Lefevere A. Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literature Fame[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
55. Luukka, M. Meta-discourse in academic texts[A].In Britt-Louis Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg. (eds.). Text and Talk in Professional Contexts[C]. Lund:Universitets biblioteket, 1992.
56. Mao, L. I Conclude Not: Toward a Pragmatic Account of Metadiscourse[J].Rhetoric Review 11,1993.
57. Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction[M]. England: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
58. Martin, J. R. English Text: System and Structure[M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992.
59. Matthews,P. H.牛津语言学词典[M].上海外语教育出版社,2000.
60. Meyer, B. The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory[M]. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1975.
61. Neubert,A. & G. M. Shreve. Translation as Text[M]. Kent: the Kent University Press,1995.
62. Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation[M]. Prentice Hall, 1988.
63. Nida, E. A. Language and Culture Contexts in Translating[M]. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press, 2001.
64. Nord, C. Text Analysis in Translation[M]. Rofobi,B. V.,1991.
65. Nord, C. Translating as a purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained[M]. St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
66. Rossiter, Jr. Theories of Communication[M]. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1974.
67. Schffirin, D. Metatalk: organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse[J]. Sociological Inquiry 50, 1980.
68. Schiffrin, D. Diseourse Markers[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987.
69. Skrandies, P. Metadiscourse in German History Writing and Englisn Translation-A Study of Writer-reader Interaction[U].Unpublished Doictorial Thesis of Manchester University,2007.
70. Stubbs, M. W. Discourse Analysis[M] .Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
71. Thompson, G. and P. Thetela. The sound of one hand clapping: the management of interaction in written discourse[J]. TEXT 15:1, 1995.
72. Thompson, G. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader[J]. Applied Linguistics 1, 2001.
73. Van Dijk, T. Discourse as Structure and Process[M]. London: Sage Publication, 1997.
74. Verhagen, A. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition[M]. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
75. Verhagen, A. Intersubjectivity and Explanation in Linguistics: A Reply to Hinzen and van Lambalgen[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 2008(1).
76. Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. London: Arnold, 1999.
77. Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
78. Williams, J. M. Style: Ten Lesson in Clarity and Grace[M]. Scott. Foresman, Glenview, 1981.
79. Wilss, W. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods[M]. Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2001.
80. Wunderlich, D. Foundations of Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1979.
81.巴赫金.巴赫金全集[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998.
82.柴改英,任大玲.语篇的互动性研究[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(2).
83.曹凤龙,王晓红.中美大学生英语议论文中的元话语比较研究[J].外语学刊.2009(5).
84.曹旸.英汉语学术书评中的元话语比较研究[J].长春理工大学学报,2009(6).
85.陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2004(2).
86.陈大亮.翻译研究:从主体性向主体间性转向[J].中国翻译,2005(2).
87.陈大亮.翻译主体间性转向的再思考—兼答刘小刚先生[J].外语研究,2007(2).
88.陈敏.我写故我在:作者身份构建的元语篇视角[J].文教资料,2008(10).
89.陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团,2006.
90.成晓光.亚言语的理论与应用[J].外语与外语教学,1999(9).
91.成晓光、姜晖.Metadiscourse:亚言语、元话语,还是元语篇(?)[J].外语与外语教学,2008(5).
92.成晓光.语言哲学视域中主体性和主体间性的建构[J].外语学刊,2009(1).
93.陈月红.从语篇翻译过程看译者的角色定位[J].湘南学院学报,2006(4).
94.陈永国.翻译的不确定性问题[J].中国翻译,2003(04).
95.戴维·克里斯特尔.现代语言学词典[M].商务印书馆.2000.
96.邓晓芒.鲁迅精神与新批判主义[J].华中师范大学学报.1996(5).
97.段成.交往行为理论与翻译的主体间性[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2009(6).
98.段红.汉语元话语分类体系初探[J].四川理工学院学报(社会科学版).2009(4)
99.弗莱德·R·多尔迈.主体性的黄昏[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1992.
100.冯光武.汉语语用标记语的语义、语用分析[J].现代外语,2004(1).
101.封齐楚.中外英语硕士毕业论文中使用元语篇手段的对比研究[U].南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2008.
102.封宗信.文学翻译中的元语言问题研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2006(4).
103.付琨.标记理论的介绍与应用[J].汉语学习,2005(6).
104.付晓丽.元话语视角的英汉旅游语篇人际代词分析[J].外语艺术教育研究,2009(4).
105.高健.英语元话语的人际—修辞功能多角度研究[U].上海:上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2007.
106.高竞怡,刘源甫,王晓燕.论元话语和话语标记[J].当代教育理论与实践,2010(1).
107.郭湛.论主体间性或交互主体性[J].中国人民大学学报,2001(3).
108.哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1984.
109.胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
110.黄国文.语篇分析的理论与实践:广告语篇研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
111.黄会健.语言标记性的选择对语言使用的影响[J].外语教学,2003(1).
112.洪明,汪国萍.英汉语篇翻译中的元功能对应—以Alice in Wonderland中“尾诗”的几种译本对照为例”[J].外语教学,2009(1).
113.姜晖,成晓光.功能性言语研究阐发[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(1).
114.纪蓉琴.先行代词It在不同学科语篇中的元语篇功能分析[J].华东交通大学学报,2007(6).
115.纪蓉琴.主体间性视阈下的译者元语篇意识构建[J].江西社会科学,2009(7).
116.金惠敏.从主体性到主体间性:对西方哲学发展史的一个后现代性考察[J].陕西师范大学学报,2005(1).
117.鞠玉梅.修辞的本质与功能-兼论修辞与和谐社会的构建[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(6).
118.旷建敏.论翻译的主体间性[J].株洲工学院学报,2005(5).
119.旷剑敏.语言主体间性及其发展的价值理想[J].求索,2007(4).
120.劳埃德·比彻尔.修辞情景[A].常昌富、顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
121.李洪儒.系词-人在语句中的存在家园[J].外语学刊,2006(2).
122.李健雪.元话语与语篇空间建构[J].淮北煤炭师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(6).
123.李明.文本间的对话与互涉-浅谈互文性与翻译之关系[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2000(2).
124.李天贤,庞继贤.学术写作中元话语的互动功能[J].西南民族大学学报,2009(5).
125.李运兴.英汉语篇翻译[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1998.
126.李运兴.语篇翻译引论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
127.李运兴.论语篇翻译教学[J].中国翻译,2003(4).
128.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.
129.李佐文.论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J].外国语,2001(3).
130.李佐文.元话语:元认知的言语体现[J].外语研究,2003(1).
131.李秀明.汉语元话语标记研究[D].上海:复旦大学中文系博士论文,2007.
132.李子荣.作为方法论原则的元语言理论[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2006.
133.梁淑梅,李媛媛.从翻译的主体性走向主体间性[J].南京航空航天大学学报,2007(2).
134.廖七一.译者意图与文本功能的转换-以胡适译诗为例[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004(1).
135.廖秋忠.廖秋忠文集[C].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.
136.林文艺.从西方修辞学的视角看翻译活动[J].福建教育学院学报,2005(10).
137.凌建侯.话语的对话性-巴赫金研究概说[J].外语教学与研究,2000(3).
138.林戊荪译.孙子兵法[M].北京:外文出版社、湖南人民出版社,1999.
139.刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
140.刘军平.解构主义的翻译观[J].外国语,1997(2).
141.刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
142.刘青.英语话语标记语与元话语之对比分析[J].山西广播电视大学学报,2010(3).
143.刘千玲.英汉翻译中的语篇意识[J].南方论刊,2008(7).
144.刘日明.哈贝马斯的主体性理论及其现实意义[J].上海社会科学院学术季刊,2001(3).
145.刘卫东.交互主体性:后现代翻译研究的出路[J].中国科技翻译,2006(2).
146.刘小云.语篇意识与翻译教学[M].广西社会科学,2008(11).
147.吕俊.哲学的语言论转向对翻译研究的启示[J].外国语,2000(5).
148.吕俊.翻译学:解构与重建-论哈贝马斯交往行动理论对翻译学的建构性意义[J].外语学刊,2002(1).
149.吕俊.建构翻译学的语言学基础[J].外语学刊,20041.
150.吕颖.用“文本中的读者”概念提高写作能力[J].大学英语,2006(9).
151.马丽萍.元语篇在语篇翻译意识构建中的角色定位[J].苏州教育学院学报,2007(2).
152.孟昭兰.普通心理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
153.苗兴伟.言语行为理论与语篇分析[J].外语学刊,1999(1).
154.庞冬,毛忠明.主体间性与《孙子兵法》军事译本的诞生[J].南京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009(3).
155.任平.交往实践与主体际[M].苏州:苏州大学出版社,1999.
156.冉永平.The pragmaties of Discourse Markers in Conversation[U].广州:广东外语外贸大学博士论文,2000.
157.沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,2000.
158.司显柱.翻译主体研究:译者地位思辨[J].西安外国语学院学报,2005(4).
159.宋晓春.主体间性与译者[J].山东外语教学,2005(4).
160.舒得干等译.物种起源[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,1999.
161.苏新春.元语言研究的三种理解及释义型元语言研究评述[J].江西师范大学学报,2003(6).
162.谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001.
163.唐建军.从哈贝马斯的语言哲学看译作与原作关系的重建[J].西安外国大学学报,2009(3).
164.唐建萍.元话语研究述评[J].山东外语教学,2010(1).
165.唐晓群.哈贝马斯的交往行为理论[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,1997(6).
166.谭晓丽.差异与延续--论译者和原作者的关系[J].湖北教育学院学报,2005(1).
167.屠国元,朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,2003(6).
168.王爱华.论明达语言性及明达语言维度观—语言哲学系列研究(一)[J].外语学刊,2006(3).
169.王树人.关于主体、主体性与主体间性的思考[J].江苏行政学院学报,2002(2).
170.王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释:从道安到傅雷[M].湖北教育出版社,2003.
171.王金玲.语篇与翻译[J].盐城师范学院学报(人文社会科学版),2001(2).
172.韦恩·布斯.修辞形态[A].当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].常昌富、顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
173.吴勇.论言语行为理论在翻译实践中的作用[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(1).
174.谢道挺.《孙子兵法》英译本译者主体性蠡测—以翟林奈、闵福德二译本为中心[J].宁德师专学报(哲学社会科学版),2010(1).
175.谢天振.《译介学》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
176.徐海铭.中国英语专业本科生使用元语篇手段的发展模式调查研究[J].外语与外语教学,2004(3).
177.徐海铭,潘海燕.元语篇的理论和实证研究综述[J].外国语,2005(6).
178.徐海铭,龚世莲.元语篇手段的使用与语篇质量相关度的实证研究[J].现代外语,2006(1).
179.徐赳赳.关于元话语的范围和分类[J].当代语言学,2006(4).
180.徐赳赳.现代汉语篇章语言学[M].中国社会科学出版社,2010.
181.许均.翻译的主体间性与视界融合[J].外语教学与研究,2003(7).
182.许均.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].中国翻译,2003(1).
183.熊笛.英汉元话语对比研究[J].重庆交通大学学报,2007(6).
184.熊笛.英语元话语的系统功能语言学研究[U].西南大学硕士学位论文,2008.
185.亚里斯多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003.
186.杨恒达.作为交往行为的翻译[A].载于谢天振编.翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
187.杨武能.翻译、接受与再创造的循环-文学翻译断想之一[A].载于许钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
188.杨黎霞.语篇语言学与翻译[J].中国科技翻译,2003(8).
189.杨信彰.元话语与语言功能[J].外语与外语教学,2007(12).
190.尹艳秋,叶绪江.主体性与主体间性[J].早期教育,2003(6).
191.于建平.元话语的语体特征及互动[J].中国科技翻译,2007(4).
192.于岚.漫谈元语言翻译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,1987(7).
193.袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想[A].载于张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
194.赵彦春.翻译归结论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
195.查明建,田雨.论译者主体性—从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003(1).
196.张登巧.交往理论与西方主体性哲学思维方式的转换[M].中南民族大学学报,2003(2).
197.张美芳,黄国文.语篇语言学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2002(3).
198.张美芳.翻译研究的功能途径[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
199.张培基译.英译中国现代散文选[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
200.张青梅.从翻译的主体性到主体间性[U].上海外国语大学硕士论文,2006.
201.张小华.强化翻译中的语篇意识[J].青海师专学报,2007(3).
202.张轶哲,文军.主体间性在汉诗英译中的体现[J].外国语言文学研究,2008(1).
203.张玉宏.巴赫金语言哲学视角下的元话语标记研究[J].兰州学刊,2009(4).
204.周红专.从翻译策略的选择看翻译的间性[J].湖南第一师范学报,2007(1).
205.周建人,叶庄方宗熙译.物种起源[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
206.朱献珑、屠国元.译者主体的缺失与回归[J].外语教学,2009(5).
2. Peterlin, A. P. Translating Metadiscourse in Research Articles[J]. Across Language and Cultures 2:9, 2008.
3. Anderson. A. H. Negotiating Coherence in Dialogues[A]. In Gernsbacherr. M. A. & T. Givon. (ed.).Coherence in Spontaneous Text[C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
4. Baker, M. In Other Words-A Coursebook on Translation[M]. London: Routledge, 1992.
5. Bateson, G. Steps to An Ecology of Mind[M]. New York: Ballantine, 1971.
6. Beaugrande, R. de & W. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. London: Longman, 1981(3).
7. Beauvais, P. J. A Speech-Act Theory of Metadiscourse[J]. Written Conununication 6:1, 1989.
8. Bell,R. T.Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice[M]. London: Longman,1991.
9. Benverniste, E. Problems in General Linguistics[M]. FL: University of Miami Press, 1971.
10. Bunton, D. The use of Higher Level Metatext in PhD Theses[J]. English for Specific Purposes 18, 1999.
11. Catford,J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation[M]. London: Oxford University Press,1965.
12. Chafe, W. Discourse Overview[A]. In W. Bright(ed.) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
13. Clark R. & R, Ivani(?). Politics of writing[M]. New York: Routledge, 1997.
14. Conley, T. M. Interpersonal Communication[M]. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1983.
15. Crismore, A. What It Is and How It Is Used in School and Non-school Science Texts[J]. Technical Report 4:12, 1983.
16. Crismore, A. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act[M]. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.
17. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & M. S. Steffensen. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish University Students[J].Written Communication 10, 1993.
18. Dafouz Milne, E. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross linguistic study of newspaper discourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 40:1, 2008.
19. Dahl, T. Textual metadiscourse in research articles:a marker of national culture or of academic discipline(?)[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36,2004.
20. Darwin, C.The Origin of Species[M].New York: P.F. The Collier Press,1909.
21. Elisabeth, L. Active participation within written argumentation: metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 2004.
22. Flower, L. Problem-solving Strategies for Writing (2nd edition)[M]. New York: Harcourt, 1987.
23. Fraser,B. Pragmatic markers[J].Pragmatics 02,1996.
24. Fraser,B. What are Diseourse Markers[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 03,1999.
25. Giles,L. The Art of War[M]. Rutland: Tuttle Publishing,2008.
26. Goffman, E. Forms of Talk[M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
27. Grabe,W. and R. Kaplan. Theory and Practice of Writing[M]. Harlow: Longman,1996.
28. Habermas, J. The theory of Communicative Action[M]. Thomas McCarthy, tr. Beacon Press, 1984.
29. Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
30. Halliday, M. A. K & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman Group UK limited.1976:4.
31. Harris, Z. Linguistics Transformations for Information Retrieval[A]. In Harris, Z (ed.)Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics[C]. Reidel (Dordrecht), 1959/1970.
32. Hatim,B. & I. Mason. Discourse and the Translator[M]. London: Longman,1990.
33. Hatim,B. & I. Mason. The Translator as Communicator[M]. London: Routlege,1997.
34. Hatim, B. Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics[M]. Exeter:University of Exeter Press, 2000.
35. Hatim. B. & I , Mason. Discourse and the Translator[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
36. Hinds, J. Reader versus Writer Responsibility: A new Typology[A]. In U. Connor & R. Kapplan(eds.) Writig across Languages: Analysis of Text[C]. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987.
37. Hoey, M. Textual Interaction[M]. London: Routledge, 2001.
38. Hyland, K. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 1998a.
39. Hyland, K. Exploring corporate rhetoric:Meta-discourse in the CEO’s letter[J]. Journal of Business Communication 35:2, 1998b.
40. Hyland, K. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998c.
41. Hyland, K. Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory textbooks[J]. English for Specific Purposes 18:1, 1999.
42. Hyland, K. Disciplinary discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing[M]. London: Longman, 2000.
43. Hyland. K. Disciplinary interactions: Meta-discourse in L2 postgraduate writing[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 2, 2004.
44. Hyland, K. & P.Tse. Meta-discourse in academic writing: A reappraisal[J]. Applied Linguistics 25:2, 2004.
45. Hyland, K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing[M]. London: Continuum,2005.
46. Jacobson, R. Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In T.A. Sebeok. ( ed. ) . Style in Language[C]. New York:Wiley,1960.
47. Keller, E. Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 3,1979.
48. Kopple, V. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse[J]. College Composition andCommunication 36, 1985.
49. Kopple,V. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse[J]. College Composition and Communication 36:1, 1985.
50. Kopple, V. Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric[A].In Barton, E. & G. Stygall(eds.). Discourse Studies in Composition[C]. New Jersey: Hampton Press, 2002.
51. Ifantidou, E. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse[J]. Journal of pragmatics 37, 2005.
52. Intarapwat, P & M. S. Steffensen. The use of meta-discourse in good and poor ESL Essays[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 1988.
53. Lautamatti, L. Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse[A]. In V. Kohonen and N. Enkvist.(eds.). Text Linguistics, Cognitive Learning, and Language Teaching[C]. Turku, Finland: Abo University, 1978.
54. Lefevere A. Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literature Fame[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
55. Luukka, M. Meta-discourse in academic texts[A].In Britt-Louis Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg. (eds.). Text and Talk in Professional Contexts[C]. Lund:Universitets biblioteket, 1992.
56. Mao, L. I Conclude Not: Toward a Pragmatic Account of Metadiscourse[J].Rhetoric Review 11,1993.
57. Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction[M]. England: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
58. Martin, J. R. English Text: System and Structure[M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992.
59. Matthews,P. H.牛津语言学词典[M].上海外语教育出版社,2000.
60. Meyer, B. The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory[M]. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1975.
61. Neubert,A. & G. M. Shreve. Translation as Text[M]. Kent: the Kent University Press,1995.
62. Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation[M]. Prentice Hall, 1988.
63. Nida, E. A. Language and Culture Contexts in Translating[M]. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press, 2001.
64. Nord, C. Text Analysis in Translation[M]. Rofobi,B. V.,1991.
65. Nord, C. Translating as a purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained[M]. St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
66. Rossiter, Jr. Theories of Communication[M]. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1974.
67. Schffirin, D. Metatalk: organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse[J]. Sociological Inquiry 50, 1980.
68. Schiffrin, D. Diseourse Markers[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987.
69. Skrandies, P. Metadiscourse in German History Writing and Englisn Translation-A Study of Writer-reader Interaction[U].Unpublished Doictorial Thesis of Manchester University,2007.
70. Stubbs, M. W. Discourse Analysis[M] .Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
71. Thompson, G. and P. Thetela. The sound of one hand clapping: the management of interaction in written discourse[J]. TEXT 15:1, 1995.
72. Thompson, G. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader[J]. Applied Linguistics 1, 2001.
73. Van Dijk, T. Discourse as Structure and Process[M]. London: Sage Publication, 1997.
74. Verhagen, A. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition[M]. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
75. Verhagen, A. Intersubjectivity and Explanation in Linguistics: A Reply to Hinzen and van Lambalgen[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 2008(1).
76. Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. London: Arnold, 1999.
77. Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
78. Williams, J. M. Style: Ten Lesson in Clarity and Grace[M]. Scott. Foresman, Glenview, 1981.
79. Wilss, W. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods[M]. Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2001.
80. Wunderlich, D. Foundations of Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1979.
81.巴赫金.巴赫金全集[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998.
82.柴改英,任大玲.语篇的互动性研究[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(2).
83.曹凤龙,王晓红.中美大学生英语议论文中的元话语比较研究[J].外语学刊.2009(5).
84.曹旸.英汉语学术书评中的元话语比较研究[J].长春理工大学学报,2009(6).
85.陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2004(2).
86.陈大亮.翻译研究:从主体性向主体间性转向[J].中国翻译,2005(2).
87.陈大亮.翻译主体间性转向的再思考—兼答刘小刚先生[J].外语研究,2007(2).
88.陈敏.我写故我在:作者身份构建的元语篇视角[J].文教资料,2008(10).
89.陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团,2006.
90.成晓光.亚言语的理论与应用[J].外语与外语教学,1999(9).
91.成晓光、姜晖.Metadiscourse:亚言语、元话语,还是元语篇(?)[J].外语与外语教学,2008(5).
92.成晓光.语言哲学视域中主体性和主体间性的建构[J].外语学刊,2009(1).
93.陈月红.从语篇翻译过程看译者的角色定位[J].湘南学院学报,2006(4).
94.陈永国.翻译的不确定性问题[J].中国翻译,2003(04).
95.戴维·克里斯特尔.现代语言学词典[M].商务印书馆.2000.
96.邓晓芒.鲁迅精神与新批判主义[J].华中师范大学学报.1996(5).
97.段成.交往行为理论与翻译的主体间性[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2009(6).
98.段红.汉语元话语分类体系初探[J].四川理工学院学报(社会科学版).2009(4)
99.弗莱德·R·多尔迈.主体性的黄昏[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1992.
100.冯光武.汉语语用标记语的语义、语用分析[J].现代外语,2004(1).
101.封齐楚.中外英语硕士毕业论文中使用元语篇手段的对比研究[U].南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2008.
102.封宗信.文学翻译中的元语言问题研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2006(4).
103.付琨.标记理论的介绍与应用[J].汉语学习,2005(6).
104.付晓丽.元话语视角的英汉旅游语篇人际代词分析[J].外语艺术教育研究,2009(4).
105.高健.英语元话语的人际—修辞功能多角度研究[U].上海:上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2007.
106.高竞怡,刘源甫,王晓燕.论元话语和话语标记[J].当代教育理论与实践,2010(1).
107.郭湛.论主体间性或交互主体性[J].中国人民大学学报,2001(3).
108.哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1984.
109.胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
110.黄国文.语篇分析的理论与实践:广告语篇研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
111.黄会健.语言标记性的选择对语言使用的影响[J].外语教学,2003(1).
112.洪明,汪国萍.英汉语篇翻译中的元功能对应—以Alice in Wonderland中“尾诗”的几种译本对照为例”[J].外语教学,2009(1).
113.姜晖,成晓光.功能性言语研究阐发[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(1).
114.纪蓉琴.先行代词It在不同学科语篇中的元语篇功能分析[J].华东交通大学学报,2007(6).
115.纪蓉琴.主体间性视阈下的译者元语篇意识构建[J].江西社会科学,2009(7).
116.金惠敏.从主体性到主体间性:对西方哲学发展史的一个后现代性考察[J].陕西师范大学学报,2005(1).
117.鞠玉梅.修辞的本质与功能-兼论修辞与和谐社会的构建[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(6).
118.旷建敏.论翻译的主体间性[J].株洲工学院学报,2005(5).
119.旷剑敏.语言主体间性及其发展的价值理想[J].求索,2007(4).
120.劳埃德·比彻尔.修辞情景[A].常昌富、顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
121.李洪儒.系词-人在语句中的存在家园[J].外语学刊,2006(2).
122.李健雪.元话语与语篇空间建构[J].淮北煤炭师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(6).
123.李明.文本间的对话与互涉-浅谈互文性与翻译之关系[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2000(2).
124.李天贤,庞继贤.学术写作中元话语的互动功能[J].西南民族大学学报,2009(5).
125.李运兴.英汉语篇翻译[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1998.
126.李运兴.语篇翻译引论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
127.李运兴.论语篇翻译教学[J].中国翻译,2003(4).
128.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.
129.李佐文.论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J].外国语,2001(3).
130.李佐文.元话语:元认知的言语体现[J].外语研究,2003(1).
131.李秀明.汉语元话语标记研究[D].上海:复旦大学中文系博士论文,2007.
132.李子荣.作为方法论原则的元语言理论[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2006.
133.梁淑梅,李媛媛.从翻译的主体性走向主体间性[J].南京航空航天大学学报,2007(2).
134.廖七一.译者意图与文本功能的转换-以胡适译诗为例[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004(1).
135.廖秋忠.廖秋忠文集[C].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.
136.林文艺.从西方修辞学的视角看翻译活动[J].福建教育学院学报,2005(10).
137.凌建侯.话语的对话性-巴赫金研究概说[J].外语教学与研究,2000(3).
138.林戊荪译.孙子兵法[M].北京:外文出版社、湖南人民出版社,1999.
139.刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
140.刘军平.解构主义的翻译观[J].外国语,1997(2).
141.刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
142.刘青.英语话语标记语与元话语之对比分析[J].山西广播电视大学学报,2010(3).
143.刘千玲.英汉翻译中的语篇意识[J].南方论刊,2008(7).
144.刘日明.哈贝马斯的主体性理论及其现实意义[J].上海社会科学院学术季刊,2001(3).
145.刘卫东.交互主体性:后现代翻译研究的出路[J].中国科技翻译,2006(2).
146.刘小云.语篇意识与翻译教学[M].广西社会科学,2008(11).
147.吕俊.哲学的语言论转向对翻译研究的启示[J].外国语,2000(5).
148.吕俊.翻译学:解构与重建-论哈贝马斯交往行动理论对翻译学的建构性意义[J].外语学刊,2002(1).
149.吕俊.建构翻译学的语言学基础[J].外语学刊,20041.
150.吕颖.用“文本中的读者”概念提高写作能力[J].大学英语,2006(9).
151.马丽萍.元语篇在语篇翻译意识构建中的角色定位[J].苏州教育学院学报,2007(2).
152.孟昭兰.普通心理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
153.苗兴伟.言语行为理论与语篇分析[J].外语学刊,1999(1).
154.庞冬,毛忠明.主体间性与《孙子兵法》军事译本的诞生[J].南京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009(3).
155.任平.交往实践与主体际[M].苏州:苏州大学出版社,1999.
156.冉永平.The pragmaties of Discourse Markers in Conversation[U].广州:广东外语外贸大学博士论文,2000.
157.沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,2000.
158.司显柱.翻译主体研究:译者地位思辨[J].西安外国语学院学报,2005(4).
159.宋晓春.主体间性与译者[J].山东外语教学,2005(4).
160.舒得干等译.物种起源[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,1999.
161.苏新春.元语言研究的三种理解及释义型元语言研究评述[J].江西师范大学学报,2003(6).
162.谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001.
163.唐建军.从哈贝马斯的语言哲学看译作与原作关系的重建[J].西安外国大学学报,2009(3).
164.唐建萍.元话语研究述评[J].山东外语教学,2010(1).
165.唐晓群.哈贝马斯的交往行为理论[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,1997(6).
166.谭晓丽.差异与延续--论译者和原作者的关系[J].湖北教育学院学报,2005(1).
167.屠国元,朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,2003(6).
168.王爱华.论明达语言性及明达语言维度观—语言哲学系列研究(一)[J].外语学刊,2006(3).
169.王树人.关于主体、主体性与主体间性的思考[J].江苏行政学院学报,2002(2).
170.王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释:从道安到傅雷[M].湖北教育出版社,2003.
171.王金玲.语篇与翻译[J].盐城师范学院学报(人文社会科学版),2001(2).
172.韦恩·布斯.修辞形态[A].当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].常昌富、顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
173.吴勇.论言语行为理论在翻译实践中的作用[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(1).
174.谢道挺.《孙子兵法》英译本译者主体性蠡测—以翟林奈、闵福德二译本为中心[J].宁德师专学报(哲学社会科学版),2010(1).
175.谢天振.《译介学》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
176.徐海铭.中国英语专业本科生使用元语篇手段的发展模式调查研究[J].外语与外语教学,2004(3).
177.徐海铭,潘海燕.元语篇的理论和实证研究综述[J].外国语,2005(6).
178.徐海铭,龚世莲.元语篇手段的使用与语篇质量相关度的实证研究[J].现代外语,2006(1).
179.徐赳赳.关于元话语的范围和分类[J].当代语言学,2006(4).
180.徐赳赳.现代汉语篇章语言学[M].中国社会科学出版社,2010.
181.许均.翻译的主体间性与视界融合[J].外语教学与研究,2003(7).
182.许均.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].中国翻译,2003(1).
183.熊笛.英汉元话语对比研究[J].重庆交通大学学报,2007(6).
184.熊笛.英语元话语的系统功能语言学研究[U].西南大学硕士学位论文,2008.
185.亚里斯多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003.
186.杨恒达.作为交往行为的翻译[A].载于谢天振编.翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
187.杨武能.翻译、接受与再创造的循环-文学翻译断想之一[A].载于许钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
188.杨黎霞.语篇语言学与翻译[J].中国科技翻译,2003(8).
189.杨信彰.元话语与语言功能[J].外语与外语教学,2007(12).
190.尹艳秋,叶绪江.主体性与主体间性[J].早期教育,2003(6).
191.于建平.元话语的语体特征及互动[J].中国科技翻译,2007(4).
192.于岚.漫谈元语言翻译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,1987(7).
193.袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想[A].载于张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
194.赵彦春.翻译归结论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
195.查明建,田雨.论译者主体性—从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003(1).
196.张登巧.交往理论与西方主体性哲学思维方式的转换[M].中南民族大学学报,2003(2).
197.张美芳,黄国文.语篇语言学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2002(3).
198.张美芳.翻译研究的功能途径[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
199.张培基译.英译中国现代散文选[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
200.张青梅.从翻译的主体性到主体间性[U].上海外国语大学硕士论文,2006.
201.张小华.强化翻译中的语篇意识[J].青海师专学报,2007(3).
202.张轶哲,文军.主体间性在汉诗英译中的体现[J].外国语言文学研究,2008(1).
203.张玉宏.巴赫金语言哲学视角下的元话语标记研究[J].兰州学刊,2009(4).
204.周红专.从翻译策略的选择看翻译的间性[J].湖南第一师范学报,2007(1).
205.周建人,叶庄方宗熙译.物种起源[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
206.朱献珑、屠国元.译者主体的缺失与回归[J].外语教学,2009(5).