中美国家领导人讲话语篇中语法隐喻对比分析
|
摘要
本文旨在对中美国家领导人讲话语篇中的语法隐喻进行对比分析,试图发现其在语法隐喻方面的异同并讨论其异同的原因,进而将研究发现应用于英语语法隐喻的汉译。论文分为六章,主要内容如下:
第一章引言部分概括性地介绍了本研究的内容、目的、意义、数据收集以及主要研究方法等。
第二章对该研究的理论基础对比语言学和语法隐喻研究进行了追踪回顾,使我们了解了对比语言学和语法隐喻理论两个领域前期的研究脉络,并发现对中美国家领导人讲话语篇中的语法隐喻进行对比分析具有其研究价值和可行性。
第三章详细介绍了本研究的理论框架即语法隐喻理论。通过对该理论框架的介绍,我们对韩礼德的语法隐喻理论有了更清楚的了解并且为接下来几章中的具体分析提供了一套可行的理论标准和依据。我们首先对一些基本的术语和概念进行了界定。对一致性和隐喻性的区分标准以及语法隐喻的不同表现形式等都一一进行了介绍。在本章研究的基础上,我们提出了本文的研究角度。
第四章对中美国家领导人讲话语篇中语法隐喻的不同体现形式进行了实例性的对比分析。主要从过程类型的转换、名物化、动词化、形容词化、情态隐喻和语气隐喻等方面探讨了两种语篇在语法隐喻应用中的异同。研究发现,语法隐喻应用的共同性主要取决于两种语篇在体裁上的一致性。与美国国家领导人讲话语篇相比,中国国家领导人讲话语篇更加正式,语言更具有非个人化,风格和句式也更固定,这些特点在语法隐喻的应用上得到了证实和体现。汉语的句式结构相对固定,少有不同过程类型的转变。但名物化、形容词化的应用却随处可见,这也是汉语语篇词汇密度相对较高的重要原因。在人际隐喻的应用方面,两种语篇表现出了惊人的相似。相似的体裁和风格决定了在语言和语法层面上表达的一致性。
第五章探讨了语法隐喻在英汉翻译中的实践应用。在比较了美国国家领导人讲话语篇的英汉两种文本后不难发现,对于英语中不同语法隐喻的体现形式要采取不同的翻译策略。在翻译由不同过程类型的转换而生成的语法隐喻时,我们往往需要将其转换成相应的一致式汉语表达方式。这主要是因为汉语语篇中过程类型的转变并不像英语语篇中那样灵活和普遍,通常很难找到对等的汉语的隐喻式表达。即使勉强翻译成隐喻化的汉语句型,也会给人以晦涩不畅的感觉。相反,在翻译英语语篇中的名物化、动词化和形容词化时,往往很容易找到对等的汉语隐喻式的表达方式,原因在于:汉语语篇中存在着大量名物化和形容词化的应用,而且这种一致式的表达与汉语的表达习惯更加符合。本章中关于英语概念隐喻汉译的研究并不能说是全面透彻,但作者相信其他的学者或许可以从中得到一些翻译方面的有用的线索和帮助。
第六章对本文的研究进行了系统的讨论和总结。本文研究所得出的结论虽然有很多的局限性,但是相信可以给该领域的相关研究一些新的启发。由于篇幅所限,更多更具体的研究未得以实现,作者因此提出了一些相关的研究建议,留待以后做更多的研究尝试。
本文第一次尝试性地对中美国家领导人讲话语篇中的语法隐喻进行了对比研究,为将来的相关研究提供了一个新的角度。此外,本文还首次对美国国家领导人讲话语篇中语法隐喻的汉译进行了分析和探讨。当然,由于“一致式”和“隐喻式”界定的模糊性以及所分析材料数量的有限性,本文中的统计数据难以达到百分之百的准确,但是其统计结果仍然可以反映出大致的趋势和方向。文中的相关结论还有待其他对此感兴趣的学者通过更严谨更科学的研究方法加以验证。
This thesis strives to conduct a contrastive study on Grammatical Metaphor (GM) between American and Chinese state leaders’discourses, attempting to find out the similarities and differences and their causes and apply the findings to the English-Chinese GM translation. The thesis is composed of six chapters and deals with the following issues respectively:
Chapter one is a brief introduction about the whole thesis. It introduces the inspiration for the present study, the contents, purposes and significance of the study, data collection and research methods.
Chapter two is a literature survey. The thesis is a contrastive study on GM so that it is quite necessary to have a brief review about the previous studies on contrastive linguistics and Grammatical Metaphor by scholars home and abroad. The review gives us a clear picture about what have been studied on these two fields and suggests that it is possible and worthwhile to conduct a contrastive analysis on GM between Chinese and American state leaders’discourses.
Chapter three introduces the theoretical framework about Grammatical Metaphor and provides a criterion for the analysis in the following chapters. We contribute some room in this part to the clarification and classification of some basic terms. We distinguish between congruent and metaphorical and various representations of GM. Through the analysis in this part, we propose our study perspective in the thesis.
Chapter four is devoted to the contrastive analysis on GM between American and Chinese state leaders’discourses. The similarities and differences of the sample discourses in GM resulting from transference across different processes, GM resulting from transference within one process, GM realized by nominalization, verbalization and adjectivization, metaphors of modality and metaphors of mood are explored in this chapter. It is found that the similarities in the distribution of ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor are mainly determined by the characteristics of the genre of the sample discourses in the two languages. Chinese state leaders’discourses are relatively more formal, impersonal and stylized, which is reflected in the representation of grammatical metaphors. The Chinese sentence patterns are more fixed and less flexible so that there are not many applications of GM on sentential level realized by transference of process types. However, the large amount of nominalization, verbalization and adjectivization explains the phenomenon that Chinese sentences carry a higher degree of lexical density. Chinese and American state leaders’discourses share great similarity on the application of metaphors of modality and metaphors of mood, which proves again that the same genre, style and purposes will lead to the same features on linguistic and grammatical levels.
Chapter five explores the applications of GM in English-Chinese translation. By careful study of the Chinese translation of the American state leaders’discourses, it is found that different strategies are applied when translating different realizations of grammatical metaphors. As to the translation of the English GM resulting from the transference of process types, the congruent Chinese realizations come to be our first choice for most cases because it is quite difficult to find the corresponding Chinese sentences that carry the same transitivity metaphors. While the English nominalization, verbalization and adjectivization can often find their corresponding Chinese equivalents that are metaphorized in the same way. The discussion about translation may not be comprehensive enough but it is believed that the results may give the translators some clues on the translation of such discourses.
Chapter six, the concluding part of the thesis, summarizes our findings and points out the limitations of the research and suggested areas for future study.
The significance of this thesis lies in that it is the first contrastive study of the Grammatical Metaphor in American and Chinese state leaders’discourses. It offers a new insight into the contrastive analysis of this text type. What’s more, the translation of English metaphorical sentences in American state leaders’discourses into Chinese has been discussed for the first time. However, due to the implicitness of the division between“congruent”and“metaphorical”and the limited collection of the sample materials, it is unavoidable that the statistic data cannot be calculated with 100% accuracy though it can still show us the tendency. All the conclusions and implications in the present study await the other scholars’test with more scientific research methods.
第一章引言部分概括性地介绍了本研究的内容、目的、意义、数据收集以及主要研究方法等。
第二章对该研究的理论基础对比语言学和语法隐喻研究进行了追踪回顾,使我们了解了对比语言学和语法隐喻理论两个领域前期的研究脉络,并发现对中美国家领导人讲话语篇中的语法隐喻进行对比分析具有其研究价值和可行性。
第三章详细介绍了本研究的理论框架即语法隐喻理论。通过对该理论框架的介绍,我们对韩礼德的语法隐喻理论有了更清楚的了解并且为接下来几章中的具体分析提供了一套可行的理论标准和依据。我们首先对一些基本的术语和概念进行了界定。对一致性和隐喻性的区分标准以及语法隐喻的不同表现形式等都一一进行了介绍。在本章研究的基础上,我们提出了本文的研究角度。
第四章对中美国家领导人讲话语篇中语法隐喻的不同体现形式进行了实例性的对比分析。主要从过程类型的转换、名物化、动词化、形容词化、情态隐喻和语气隐喻等方面探讨了两种语篇在语法隐喻应用中的异同。研究发现,语法隐喻应用的共同性主要取决于两种语篇在体裁上的一致性。与美国国家领导人讲话语篇相比,中国国家领导人讲话语篇更加正式,语言更具有非个人化,风格和句式也更固定,这些特点在语法隐喻的应用上得到了证实和体现。汉语的句式结构相对固定,少有不同过程类型的转变。但名物化、形容词化的应用却随处可见,这也是汉语语篇词汇密度相对较高的重要原因。在人际隐喻的应用方面,两种语篇表现出了惊人的相似。相似的体裁和风格决定了在语言和语法层面上表达的一致性。
第五章探讨了语法隐喻在英汉翻译中的实践应用。在比较了美国国家领导人讲话语篇的英汉两种文本后不难发现,对于英语中不同语法隐喻的体现形式要采取不同的翻译策略。在翻译由不同过程类型的转换而生成的语法隐喻时,我们往往需要将其转换成相应的一致式汉语表达方式。这主要是因为汉语语篇中过程类型的转变并不像英语语篇中那样灵活和普遍,通常很难找到对等的汉语的隐喻式表达。即使勉强翻译成隐喻化的汉语句型,也会给人以晦涩不畅的感觉。相反,在翻译英语语篇中的名物化、动词化和形容词化时,往往很容易找到对等的汉语隐喻式的表达方式,原因在于:汉语语篇中存在着大量名物化和形容词化的应用,而且这种一致式的表达与汉语的表达习惯更加符合。本章中关于英语概念隐喻汉译的研究并不能说是全面透彻,但作者相信其他的学者或许可以从中得到一些翻译方面的有用的线索和帮助。
第六章对本文的研究进行了系统的讨论和总结。本文研究所得出的结论虽然有很多的局限性,但是相信可以给该领域的相关研究一些新的启发。由于篇幅所限,更多更具体的研究未得以实现,作者因此提出了一些相关的研究建议,留待以后做更多的研究尝试。
本文第一次尝试性地对中美国家领导人讲话语篇中的语法隐喻进行了对比研究,为将来的相关研究提供了一个新的角度。此外,本文还首次对美国国家领导人讲话语篇中语法隐喻的汉译进行了分析和探讨。当然,由于“一致式”和“隐喻式”界定的模糊性以及所分析材料数量的有限性,本文中的统计数据难以达到百分之百的准确,但是其统计结果仍然可以反映出大致的趋势和方向。文中的相关结论还有待其他对此感兴趣的学者通过更严谨更科学的研究方法加以验证。
This thesis strives to conduct a contrastive study on Grammatical Metaphor (GM) between American and Chinese state leaders’discourses, attempting to find out the similarities and differences and their causes and apply the findings to the English-Chinese GM translation. The thesis is composed of six chapters and deals with the following issues respectively:
Chapter one is a brief introduction about the whole thesis. It introduces the inspiration for the present study, the contents, purposes and significance of the study, data collection and research methods.
Chapter two is a literature survey. The thesis is a contrastive study on GM so that it is quite necessary to have a brief review about the previous studies on contrastive linguistics and Grammatical Metaphor by scholars home and abroad. The review gives us a clear picture about what have been studied on these two fields and suggests that it is possible and worthwhile to conduct a contrastive analysis on GM between Chinese and American state leaders’discourses.
Chapter three introduces the theoretical framework about Grammatical Metaphor and provides a criterion for the analysis in the following chapters. We contribute some room in this part to the clarification and classification of some basic terms. We distinguish between congruent and metaphorical and various representations of GM. Through the analysis in this part, we propose our study perspective in the thesis.
Chapter four is devoted to the contrastive analysis on GM between American and Chinese state leaders’discourses. The similarities and differences of the sample discourses in GM resulting from transference across different processes, GM resulting from transference within one process, GM realized by nominalization, verbalization and adjectivization, metaphors of modality and metaphors of mood are explored in this chapter. It is found that the similarities in the distribution of ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor are mainly determined by the characteristics of the genre of the sample discourses in the two languages. Chinese state leaders’discourses are relatively more formal, impersonal and stylized, which is reflected in the representation of grammatical metaphors. The Chinese sentence patterns are more fixed and less flexible so that there are not many applications of GM on sentential level realized by transference of process types. However, the large amount of nominalization, verbalization and adjectivization explains the phenomenon that Chinese sentences carry a higher degree of lexical density. Chinese and American state leaders’discourses share great similarity on the application of metaphors of modality and metaphors of mood, which proves again that the same genre, style and purposes will lead to the same features on linguistic and grammatical levels.
Chapter five explores the applications of GM in English-Chinese translation. By careful study of the Chinese translation of the American state leaders’discourses, it is found that different strategies are applied when translating different realizations of grammatical metaphors. As to the translation of the English GM resulting from the transference of process types, the congruent Chinese realizations come to be our first choice for most cases because it is quite difficult to find the corresponding Chinese sentences that carry the same transitivity metaphors. While the English nominalization, verbalization and adjectivization can often find their corresponding Chinese equivalents that are metaphorized in the same way. The discussion about translation may not be comprehensive enough but it is believed that the results may give the translators some clues on the translation of such discourses.
Chapter six, the concluding part of the thesis, summarizes our findings and points out the limitations of the research and suggested areas for future study.
The significance of this thesis lies in that it is the first contrastive study of the Grammatical Metaphor in American and Chinese state leaders’discourses. It offers a new insight into the contrastive analysis of this text type. What’s more, the translation of English metaphorical sentences in American state leaders’discourses into Chinese has been discussed for the first time. However, due to the implicitness of the division between“congruent”and“metaphorical”and the limited collection of the sample materials, it is unavoidable that the statistic data cannot be calculated with 100% accuracy though it can still show us the tendency. All the conclusions and implications in the present study await the other scholars’test with more scientific research methods.
引文
(1) Alford, John A. The grammatical metaphor: A survey of its use in the middle ages. Speculum 57,4.728-760. 1982.
(2) Basil Hatim. Communication Across Cultures [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Press. 2001.
(3) Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Edward Arnold. 1995.
(4) Brown, G. & Yule, G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
(5) Cooper, D. Metaphor. Oxfor: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd. 1986.
(6) Crookes, G. Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 7-70. 1986.
(7) Eggins, Suzanne. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers. 1994.
(8) Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman Group UK Limited. 1989.
(9) Fisiak,J. Some Introductory Notes Concerning Contrastive Linguistics. [A].In J.Fisiak(ed.). Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. 1981.
(10) Goatly, A. Green Grammar and Grammatical Metaphor, or Language and The Myth of Power, or Metaphors We Die By. Journal of Pragmatics. 1996.
(11) Gosden, H. Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics. 1993.
(12) Gullip, P. “Text Technology: The Power-Tool of Grammatical Metaphor, RELC Journal Vol.31 No.2 December 2000.
(13) Halliday, M. A. K. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 1985/1994.
(14) Halliday, M. A. K. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: the Framing of the English Clause. In R. Rossini, G. Sandri & R. Scazzieri (eds.) Incommensurability and Translation [C]. Chelterham: Elgar. 1996.
(15) Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. Construing Experience Through Meaning. A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London and New York: Cassell. 1999.
(16) Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 1979.
(17) Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward Arnold Limited. 1978.
(18) Hatim, Basil. Communication Across Cultures. [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2001.
(19) Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford University Press. 1991/1996.
(20) Holmes, R. Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes. 1997.
(21) James, C. Contrastive Analysis[M]. Harlow Essex: Longman. 1980.
(22) Lado, R. Linguistics Across Culture. Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. The University of Michigan. 1975.
(23) Lakoff. C. & Johnson. Metaphors We Live by, University of Chicago Press. 1980.
(24) Love, A. Lexico-grammatical Features of Geology Textbooks: Process and Product Revisited. English for Specific Purposes. 1993.
(25) Martin, J. R. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co. 1992.
(26) Martin, J. R., C. Matthiessen, and C. Painter. Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. 1997.
(27) Martinez, I. Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes. 2001.
(28) Matthiessen, C. Interpreting the Textual Metafunction in Martin Davies & Louis Ravelli. (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics. London: Printer Publishers. 1992.
(29) McKenna, B. How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. Applied Linguistics. 1997.
(30) Palmer, F.R. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press1986.
(31) Ravelli, L. Grammatical Metaphor: an Initial Analysis in Erich H. Steiner et al (eds.) Pragmatics, discourse and text. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold. 1988.
(32) Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold Limited. 1996.
(33) Whorf, B. L. Language and Logic [J]. Technological Review. 1941.
(34) Young, R., & Nguyen, H. Modes of meaning in high school science. Applied Linguistics. 2002.
(35) 常晨光,英语中的人际语法隐喻,《外语与外语教学》2001 第 7 期。
(36) 常晨光,语法隐喻与经验的重新建构, 《外语教学与研究》2004-1。
(37) 陈敏哲,英语动词过去时研究的新视角 ---- 概念的隐喻化,《山东师大外国语学院学报》,2002 第 3 期。
(38) 丛迎旭,名物化英汉对比研究,《四川外语学院学报》2004 第 4 期。
(39) 董宏乐,《科学语篇的隐喻性》,上海复旦大学出版社,2005。
(40) 范文芳,《语法隐喻理论研究》,外语教学与研究出版社,2001。
(41) 范文芳,英语语气隐喻,《外国语》,2000 第 4 期。
(42) 范文芳,名词化隐喻的语篇衔接功能,《外语研究》1999 第 1 期。
(43) 何恒幸,综合运用一致式与隐喻式:功能语法分析新视角,《现代外语》,2004-1。
(44) 胡壮麟,评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式,《外语教学与研究》2000 第二期。
(45) 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。
(46) 胡壮麟,语法隐喻.,《外语教学与研究》,1996,(4):1-7。
(47) 胡壮麟,《语言系统与功能》,北京大学出版社,1990。
(48) 胡壮麟,《语篇的衔接与连贯》,上海外语教育出版社,1994。
(49) 胡壮麟、方琰,《功能语言学在中国的进展》,清华大学出版社,1997。
(50) 黄国文,《功能语法入门》,外语教学与研究出版社,2000。
(51) 金娜娜、 陈自力, 语法隐喻的认知效果,《外语教学与研究》2004-1。
(52) 郎天万,蒋勇,从认知角度拓展韩礼德等对英语语法概念隐喻的分析,《四川外语学院学报》,1997 第 4 期。
(53) 李国南,英语动词过去时的隐喻认知模式,《外语教学与研究》,2004 第 1期。
(54) 林芳,英汉科技语言中的语法隐喻现象及其类型对比,《新疆大学学报》,2002 第 4 期。
(55) 林书武,国外隐喻研究综述,《外语教学与研究》,1997 第 1 期。
(56) 刘承宇,概念隐喻与人际隐喻级转移的逆向性,《外语教学与研究》,2005第 4 期。
(57) 刘承宇,语篇隐喻的符号学与认知理据,《外语与外语教学》,2002 第 5期。
(58) 刘宇红,关于韩礼德概念隐喻的再思考,《四川外语学院学报》,2004 第 5期。
(59) 刘宇红,Congruence 浅议,《外国语》,2001 第 6 期。
(60) 苗兴伟,人际意义与语篇的建构,《山东外语教学》,2004 第 1 期。
(61) 孙启耀,伊英莉,我国目前隐喻研究的进展简评,《山东外语教学》,2002第 3 期。
(62) 束定芳,隐喻的语用学研究,《外语研究》,1995 第 2 期。
(63) 束定芳,论隐喻的本质及语义特征,《外国语》,1998 第 6 期。
(64) 束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2000。
(65) 王馥芳,“语法化”理论和韩礼德的语法隐喻模式,《山东外语教学》,2001 第 2 期。
(66) 王栋,名词化与语法隐喻,《外语与翻译》2001 第 1 期。
(67) 王寅,标记象似性,《外语学刊》1998 第 3 期。
(68) 许余龙,《对比语言学》,上海外语教育出版社,2002。
(69) 熊学亮,刘东虹,英语学习中语法隐喻的迁移,《外语教学与研究》,2005-2。
(70) 熊昕,语法隐喻的语篇衔接功能,《赣南师范学院学报》2003 第 4 期。
(71) 严世清,语法隐喻理论的发展及其理论意义,《外国语》2003 第 3 期。
(72) 严世清,论韩礼德的语言哲学思想,《外语研究》2002 第 2 期。
(73) 杨成虎,语法化理论与语法隐喻的差异分析,《福建外语》2002 第 1 期。
(74) 杨自俭,《英汉语比较与翻译》,上海外语教育出版社,2002。
(75) 曾蕾,论系统功能语法中“投射”概念隐喻句构及其语义特征,《现代外语》,2003-4。
(76) 张今、陈云清,《英汉比较语法纲要》, 北京:商务印书馆,1981。
(77) 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。
(78) 周晓康,从及物性系统看汉语动词的语法—语义关系,《语言系统与功能》,北京大学出版社,1990。
(79) 朱永生,英语中的语法比喻现象,《外国语》1994 年第1期。
(80) 朱永生、董宏乐,科技语篇中的词汇隐喻、语法隐喻及其互补性,《山东外语教学》,2001-4。
(81) 朱永生、严世清,语法隐喻理论的理据及其贡献,《外语教学与研究》2000第 2 期。
(82) 朱永生、严世清,《系统功能语言学多维思考》,上海外语教育出版社,2001。
(83) 朱永生,科技语篇中的词汇隐喻、语法隐喻及其互补性,《山东外语教学》,2001-4。
(84) 朱永生,《世纪之交论功能》,上海外语教育出版社,2002。
(85) 王彩丽,修辞隐喻、认知隐喻和语法隐喻的关系探讨,《广东外语外贸大学学报》,2004 第 3 期。
(86) 吕叔湘, 《中国文法要略》,北京:商务印书馆,1982。
(2) Basil Hatim. Communication Across Cultures [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Press. 2001.
(3) Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Edward Arnold. 1995.
(4) Brown, G. & Yule, G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
(5) Cooper, D. Metaphor. Oxfor: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd. 1986.
(6) Crookes, G. Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 7-70. 1986.
(7) Eggins, Suzanne. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers. 1994.
(8) Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman Group UK Limited. 1989.
(9) Fisiak,J. Some Introductory Notes Concerning Contrastive Linguistics. [A].In J.Fisiak(ed.). Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. 1981.
(10) Goatly, A. Green Grammar and Grammatical Metaphor, or Language and The Myth of Power, or Metaphors We Die By. Journal of Pragmatics. 1996.
(11) Gosden, H. Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics. 1993.
(12) Gullip, P. “Text Technology: The Power-Tool of Grammatical Metaphor, RELC Journal Vol.31 No.2 December 2000.
(13) Halliday, M. A. K. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 1985/1994.
(14) Halliday, M. A. K. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: the Framing of the English Clause. In R. Rossini, G. Sandri & R. Scazzieri (eds.) Incommensurability and Translation [C]. Chelterham: Elgar. 1996.
(15) Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. Construing Experience Through Meaning. A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London and New York: Cassell. 1999.
(16) Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 1979.
(17) Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward Arnold Limited. 1978.
(18) Hatim, Basil. Communication Across Cultures. [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2001.
(19) Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford University Press. 1991/1996.
(20) Holmes, R. Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes. 1997.
(21) James, C. Contrastive Analysis[M]. Harlow Essex: Longman. 1980.
(22) Lado, R. Linguistics Across Culture. Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. The University of Michigan. 1975.
(23) Lakoff. C. & Johnson. Metaphors We Live by, University of Chicago Press. 1980.
(24) Love, A. Lexico-grammatical Features of Geology Textbooks: Process and Product Revisited. English for Specific Purposes. 1993.
(25) Martin, J. R. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co. 1992.
(26) Martin, J. R., C. Matthiessen, and C. Painter. Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. 1997.
(27) Martinez, I. Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes. 2001.
(28) Matthiessen, C. Interpreting the Textual Metafunction in Martin Davies & Louis Ravelli. (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics. London: Printer Publishers. 1992.
(29) McKenna, B. How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. Applied Linguistics. 1997.
(30) Palmer, F.R. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press1986.
(31) Ravelli, L. Grammatical Metaphor: an Initial Analysis in Erich H. Steiner et al (eds.) Pragmatics, discourse and text. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold. 1988.
(32) Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold Limited. 1996.
(33) Whorf, B. L. Language and Logic [J]. Technological Review. 1941.
(34) Young, R., & Nguyen, H. Modes of meaning in high school science. Applied Linguistics. 2002.
(35) 常晨光,英语中的人际语法隐喻,《外语与外语教学》2001 第 7 期。
(36) 常晨光,语法隐喻与经验的重新建构, 《外语教学与研究》2004-1。
(37) 陈敏哲,英语动词过去时研究的新视角 ---- 概念的隐喻化,《山东师大外国语学院学报》,2002 第 3 期。
(38) 丛迎旭,名物化英汉对比研究,《四川外语学院学报》2004 第 4 期。
(39) 董宏乐,《科学语篇的隐喻性》,上海复旦大学出版社,2005。
(40) 范文芳,《语法隐喻理论研究》,外语教学与研究出版社,2001。
(41) 范文芳,英语语气隐喻,《外国语》,2000 第 4 期。
(42) 范文芳,名词化隐喻的语篇衔接功能,《外语研究》1999 第 1 期。
(43) 何恒幸,综合运用一致式与隐喻式:功能语法分析新视角,《现代外语》,2004-1。
(44) 胡壮麟,评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式,《外语教学与研究》2000 第二期。
(45) 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。
(46) 胡壮麟,语法隐喻.,《外语教学与研究》,1996,(4):1-7。
(47) 胡壮麟,《语言系统与功能》,北京大学出版社,1990。
(48) 胡壮麟,《语篇的衔接与连贯》,上海外语教育出版社,1994。
(49) 胡壮麟、方琰,《功能语言学在中国的进展》,清华大学出版社,1997。
(50) 黄国文,《功能语法入门》,外语教学与研究出版社,2000。
(51) 金娜娜、 陈自力, 语法隐喻的认知效果,《外语教学与研究》2004-1。
(52) 郎天万,蒋勇,从认知角度拓展韩礼德等对英语语法概念隐喻的分析,《四川外语学院学报》,1997 第 4 期。
(53) 李国南,英语动词过去时的隐喻认知模式,《外语教学与研究》,2004 第 1期。
(54) 林芳,英汉科技语言中的语法隐喻现象及其类型对比,《新疆大学学报》,2002 第 4 期。
(55) 林书武,国外隐喻研究综述,《外语教学与研究》,1997 第 1 期。
(56) 刘承宇,概念隐喻与人际隐喻级转移的逆向性,《外语教学与研究》,2005第 4 期。
(57) 刘承宇,语篇隐喻的符号学与认知理据,《外语与外语教学》,2002 第 5期。
(58) 刘宇红,关于韩礼德概念隐喻的再思考,《四川外语学院学报》,2004 第 5期。
(59) 刘宇红,Congruence 浅议,《外国语》,2001 第 6 期。
(60) 苗兴伟,人际意义与语篇的建构,《山东外语教学》,2004 第 1 期。
(61) 孙启耀,伊英莉,我国目前隐喻研究的进展简评,《山东外语教学》,2002第 3 期。
(62) 束定芳,隐喻的语用学研究,《外语研究》,1995 第 2 期。
(63) 束定芳,论隐喻的本质及语义特征,《外国语》,1998 第 6 期。
(64) 束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2000。
(65) 王馥芳,“语法化”理论和韩礼德的语法隐喻模式,《山东外语教学》,2001 第 2 期。
(66) 王栋,名词化与语法隐喻,《外语与翻译》2001 第 1 期。
(67) 王寅,标记象似性,《外语学刊》1998 第 3 期。
(68) 许余龙,《对比语言学》,上海外语教育出版社,2002。
(69) 熊学亮,刘东虹,英语学习中语法隐喻的迁移,《外语教学与研究》,2005-2。
(70) 熊昕,语法隐喻的语篇衔接功能,《赣南师范学院学报》2003 第 4 期。
(71) 严世清,语法隐喻理论的发展及其理论意义,《外国语》2003 第 3 期。
(72) 严世清,论韩礼德的语言哲学思想,《外语研究》2002 第 2 期。
(73) 杨成虎,语法化理论与语法隐喻的差异分析,《福建外语》2002 第 1 期。
(74) 杨自俭,《英汉语比较与翻译》,上海外语教育出版社,2002。
(75) 曾蕾,论系统功能语法中“投射”概念隐喻句构及其语义特征,《现代外语》,2003-4。
(76) 张今、陈云清,《英汉比较语法纲要》, 北京:商务印书馆,1981。
(77) 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。
(78) 周晓康,从及物性系统看汉语动词的语法—语义关系,《语言系统与功能》,北京大学出版社,1990。
(79) 朱永生,英语中的语法比喻现象,《外国语》1994 年第1期。
(80) 朱永生、董宏乐,科技语篇中的词汇隐喻、语法隐喻及其互补性,《山东外语教学》,2001-4。
(81) 朱永生、严世清,语法隐喻理论的理据及其贡献,《外语教学与研究》2000第 2 期。
(82) 朱永生、严世清,《系统功能语言学多维思考》,上海外语教育出版社,2001。
(83) 朱永生,科技语篇中的词汇隐喻、语法隐喻及其互补性,《山东外语教学》,2001-4。
(84) 朱永生,《世纪之交论功能》,上海外语教育出版社,2002。
(85) 王彩丽,修辞隐喻、认知隐喻和语法隐喻的关系探讨,《广东外语外贸大学学报》,2004 第 3 期。
(86) 吕叔湘, 《中国文法要略》,北京:商务印书馆,1982。