英语深层回指的认知转喻研究
|
摘要
在日常交际的过程中,交际者常常使用某一特定的表达来指代另一特定的人、实体或者事件,这就是指称。指称是人类言语交际的一个重要特征。韩礼德和哈桑将指称划分为外指和内指,后者又可以细分为回指和后指。回指是一种复杂的语言现象,它一直吸引着国内外语言学家的注意,也一直是现代语言学的热门研究课题之一。回指的研究可以追溯到公元前一世纪。在回指研究的历史发展过程中,不同的学者对回指有其不同的定义、分类和研究视角。传统语言学家更注重回指功能的研究,并将其视为一种替代。后来,随着语言学的发展,他们开始意识到回指的复杂性,并逐渐从不同的角度研究回指现象。其中包括以乔姆斯基为代表的句法角度的研究,以莱文森和黄衍为代表的语用角度的研究,以韩礼德和哈桑为代表的功能角度的研究,以艾莉和许余龙为代表的认知角度的研究等等。
韩克玛和萨克将回指划分为表层回指和深层回指。本文将从转喻的角度研究英语中的深层回指,以期为回指的研究领域提供一个新的研究视角。在认知语言学中,隐喻一直处于显著的地位,而转喻则处于次要位置。事实上,语言的本质是转喻的。转喻研究的发展经历了从传统研究到认知研究的转变。传统转喻观仅仅在词汇层面上定义转喻,而且更多地注重其修辞和文学的功能,因此较为局限。认知语言学的发展为人们带来了更为科学有力的认知转喻观,它能更好地体现转喻的本质,即：一方面,转喻本质上是概念的；另一方面,转喻是一个认知的过程,反映人类的思维、态度以及行为。雷考夫认为转喻在理想化认知模型中运作。它与人的思维密切相关,并且塑造人的思维和言行。
概括说来,转喻主要生成两大关系——语言形式和概念之间的转喻关系以及不同的语言形式之间的转喻关系。本文针对这两种转喻关系提出了两种不同的认知转喻机制。全文共分为五部分。第一部分是文章的引言,主要介绍了论文的课题来源、写作目的、研究意义、研究方法以及文章的大致框架。第二部分是文献综述,简要地回顾了回指的定义、分类以及不同的研究视角。第三部分阐释了论文的理论依据,即转喻理论。其中包括转喻的概念、分类、转喻观的发展以及转喻生成的关系的划分。第四部分是文章的重点,也是核心部分。它首先区分了表层回指和深层回指,然后在深层回指现有的划分基础上对其进行了完善。最后,提出了用于阐释深层回指实例的两种认知转喻机制,并通过对实例的阐释,实现句中回指语与其相应的先行项之间的共指关系。第五部分是文章的结论部分,总结了文章的研究成果并指出其局限性,同时对深层回指未来的研究进行了展望。
During the actual course of daily communication, communicators usually employ a certain expression to refer to a certain person, or a certain entity or a certain event. That is reference. Reference is a fundamental feature of people's linguistic communication. According to Halliday and Hasan, reference is classified into exophora and endophora, the latter one of which can be further divided into anaphora and cataphora. Anaphora is a complicated linguistic phenomenon. It attracts much attention of linguists home and abroad, and has always been one of the hot research topics of modern linguistics. The study of anaphora can be traced back to the first century BC. During the historical course of anaphoric studies, different scholars have their different definitions, classifications as well as different research angles on anaphora. The traditional linguists pay more attention to the function of anaphora, regarding it as a kind of substitution. Then, with the development of language, they began to realize the complexity of anaphora, and researched on the anaphoric phenomenon from different perspectives. There are Chomsky's syntactic studies, Levinson and Huang Yan's Pragmatic studies, Halliday and Hasan's functional studies, Ariel and Xu Yulong's cognitive studies and so on.
Hankamer and Sag divided anaphora into surface anaphora and deep anaphora, and the latter one is the research object and discussed through a metonymic perspective in this thesis. This study may provide a new research angle for this field. In cognitive linguistics, metaphor has always taken up a prominent position, while, metonymy is of less importance. Actually, language is metonymic by nature. The development of metonymic studies experiences the transition from traditional studies to cognitive ones. The traditional view defines metonymy only at the lexical level, and attaches great importance to the rhetorical as well as the literary function of metonymy. Therefore, it is rather limited. The development of cognitive linguistics brings people the cognitive concept of metonymy, which is more scientific and powerful, and can better exhibit the nature of metonymy. On the one hand, metonymy is conceptual in nature; on the other hand, metonymy is a cognitive process, reflecting human thoughts, attitudes as well as actions. According to Lakoff, metonymy operates within Idealized Cognitive Model. It is closely connected with human thoughts and shapes the way people think, speak as well as behave.
Generally speaking, metonymy generates two kinds of relationships---that between linguistic form and concept and that between different linguistic forms, according to which two different cognitive metonymic mechanisms are represented. Altogether, this thesis consists of five parts. Part one is the introduction, mainly introducing the source, writing purpose, research significance, methodology as well as a general outline of this thesis. Part two is the literature review, which briefly reviews the definition, classification and different research perspectives of English anaphora. Part three expatiates the theoretical fundation of this thesis---the metonymic theory, which contains the definition, the development of metonymic concept as well as the division of the metonymy-producing relationships. Part four is the centural part of this thesis. It first distinguishes surface anaphora and deep anaphora. And then, it perfects the classification of deep anaphora based on the present one. Finally, two cognitive metonymic mechanisms are proposed. Through the interpretation of different types of deep anaphoric examples, the co-referential relationship between the anaphor and its corresponding antecedent is fulfilled. Part five is the conclusion, which concludes the major findings as well as research limitations, and makes an expectation for the future study of deep anaphora.
韩克玛和萨克将回指划分为表层回指和深层回指。本文将从转喻的角度研究英语中的深层回指,以期为回指的研究领域提供一个新的研究视角。在认知语言学中,隐喻一直处于显著的地位,而转喻则处于次要位置。事实上,语言的本质是转喻的。转喻研究的发展经历了从传统研究到认知研究的转变。传统转喻观仅仅在词汇层面上定义转喻,而且更多地注重其修辞和文学的功能,因此较为局限。认知语言学的发展为人们带来了更为科学有力的认知转喻观,它能更好地体现转喻的本质,即：一方面,转喻本质上是概念的；另一方面,转喻是一个认知的过程,反映人类的思维、态度以及行为。雷考夫认为转喻在理想化认知模型中运作。它与人的思维密切相关,并且塑造人的思维和言行。
概括说来,转喻主要生成两大关系——语言形式和概念之间的转喻关系以及不同的语言形式之间的转喻关系。本文针对这两种转喻关系提出了两种不同的认知转喻机制。全文共分为五部分。第一部分是文章的引言,主要介绍了论文的课题来源、写作目的、研究意义、研究方法以及文章的大致框架。第二部分是文献综述,简要地回顾了回指的定义、分类以及不同的研究视角。第三部分阐释了论文的理论依据,即转喻理论。其中包括转喻的概念、分类、转喻观的发展以及转喻生成的关系的划分。第四部分是文章的重点,也是核心部分。它首先区分了表层回指和深层回指,然后在深层回指现有的划分基础上对其进行了完善。最后,提出了用于阐释深层回指实例的两种认知转喻机制,并通过对实例的阐释,实现句中回指语与其相应的先行项之间的共指关系。第五部分是文章的结论部分,总结了文章的研究成果并指出其局限性,同时对深层回指未来的研究进行了展望。
During the actual course of daily communication, communicators usually employ a certain expression to refer to a certain person, or a certain entity or a certain event. That is reference. Reference is a fundamental feature of people's linguistic communication. According to Halliday and Hasan, reference is classified into exophora and endophora, the latter one of which can be further divided into anaphora and cataphora. Anaphora is a complicated linguistic phenomenon. It attracts much attention of linguists home and abroad, and has always been one of the hot research topics of modern linguistics. The study of anaphora can be traced back to the first century BC. During the historical course of anaphoric studies, different scholars have their different definitions, classifications as well as different research angles on anaphora. The traditional linguists pay more attention to the function of anaphora, regarding it as a kind of substitution. Then, with the development of language, they began to realize the complexity of anaphora, and researched on the anaphoric phenomenon from different perspectives. There are Chomsky's syntactic studies, Levinson and Huang Yan's Pragmatic studies, Halliday and Hasan's functional studies, Ariel and Xu Yulong's cognitive studies and so on.
Hankamer and Sag divided anaphora into surface anaphora and deep anaphora, and the latter one is the research object and discussed through a metonymic perspective in this thesis. This study may provide a new research angle for this field. In cognitive linguistics, metaphor has always taken up a prominent position, while, metonymy is of less importance. Actually, language is metonymic by nature. The development of metonymic studies experiences the transition from traditional studies to cognitive ones. The traditional view defines metonymy only at the lexical level, and attaches great importance to the rhetorical as well as the literary function of metonymy. Therefore, it is rather limited. The development of cognitive linguistics brings people the cognitive concept of metonymy, which is more scientific and powerful, and can better exhibit the nature of metonymy. On the one hand, metonymy is conceptual in nature; on the other hand, metonymy is a cognitive process, reflecting human thoughts, attitudes as well as actions. According to Lakoff, metonymy operates within Idealized Cognitive Model. It is closely connected with human thoughts and shapes the way people think, speak as well as behave.
Generally speaking, metonymy generates two kinds of relationships---that between linguistic form and concept and that between different linguistic forms, according to which two different cognitive metonymic mechanisms are represented. Altogether, this thesis consists of five parts. Part one is the introduction, mainly introducing the source, writing purpose, research significance, methodology as well as a general outline of this thesis. Part two is the literature review, which briefly reviews the definition, classification and different research perspectives of English anaphora. Part three expatiates the theoretical fundation of this thesis---the metonymic theory, which contains the definition, the development of metonymic concept as well as the division of the metonymy-producing relationships. Part four is the centural part of this thesis. It first distinguishes surface anaphora and deep anaphora. And then, it perfects the classification of deep anaphora based on the present one. Finally, two cognitive metonymic mechanisms are proposed. Through the interpretation of different types of deep anaphoric examples, the co-referential relationship between the anaphor and its corresponding antecedent is fulfilled. Part five is the conclusion, which concludes the major findings as well as research limitations, and makes an expectation for the future study of deep anaphora.
引文
[1]John Lyons. Linguistic Semantics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.
[2]George Lakoff, Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[3]Aoun Joseph. A Grammar ofAnaphor[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press,1985.
[4]Bent Jacobson. Modern Transformational Grammar[M]. Oxford:Elsevier Science Publishing Company,1986.
[5]Levinson, S. C. "Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora:A Partial Pragmatic Reduction of Binding and Control Phenomena"[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1987, (23):379-434.
[6]M. A. K. Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan. Cohesion in English[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[7]Carter, D. Interpreting Anaphora in Natural Language Texts[M]. Chichester:Ellis Horwood,1987.
[8]Cornish, F. Anaphoric Relations in English and French:A Discourse Perspective [M]. London: Croom Helm,1986.
[9]Wasow, T. Anaphora in Generative Grammar[M]. Ghent:E. Story-Scientia,1979.
[10]Quirk, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M]. London:Longman Press, 1985.
[11]Richards et al. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics[Z]. London: Longman,1992.
[12]Bussmann, H. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics[Z]. London:Routledge,1996.
[13]Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonology. Fourth Edition[Z]. Oxford:Blackwell Press, 1997.
[14]许余龙.篇章回指的功能语用探索-一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[15]Ellis Jeffery. The Logical and Textual Function[M]. London:Batsford,1988.
[16]Chu, C. C. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese[M]. New York:Peter Lang,1998.
[17]McCawley, J. D. The Syntactic Phenomenon of English. Second Edition[M]. Chicago:The
University of Chicago Press,1998.
[18]秦洪武.第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析[J].当代语言学,2001,(1)：55-64.
[19]Lees, R.B., Klima, E. S. "Rules for English Pronominalisation"[J], Language,1963, (39):17-28.
[20]高原.照应词的认知分析[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[21]Reinhart, T. "Definite NP Anaphora and C-command dominions"[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1981, (12): 605-633.
[22]Chomsky, N. Lectures on Governmental and Binding[M]. Dordrecht:Foris Publications,1981.
[23]Grice, P. H. "Logic and Conversation"[A]. In Cole, P. and Morgan J. Syntax and Semantics:Volume 3, Speech Acts [C]. New York:Academic Press,1975,41-58.
[24]Huang, Yan. Anaphora:A Cross-Linguistic Approach[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[25]Kuno, S. Functional Syntax:Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
[26]Brickerton, D. "Some Assertion About Presuppositions About Pronominalization"[A]. In Grossman, R. E. & Vance. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism[C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1975,24-35.
[27]Brown, G, Yule, G Discourse Analysis[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[28]Chafe, W. L. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1994.
[29]Prince, E. F. "Toward a Taxonomy of Existential Presupposition in Discourse"[A]. In Cole,P. Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York:Academic Press,1981,223-249.
[30]Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., Zacharski, R. "Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse"[J]. Language,1993, (69):274-303.
[31]Ariel, M. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedent[M]. London:Routledge,1990.
[32]Gibbs, R. W. Jr. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[33]Stallard, D. "Two Kinds of Metonymy"[A]. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics [C]. Columbus:Ohio State University,1993,87-94.
[34]Nunberg, G. "Transfers of Meaning"[J]. Journal of Semantics,1995, (12):109-132.
[35]Koch, Peter. "Frame and Contiguity:on the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation"[A]. Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999,139-167.
[36]Langacker, Ronald W. "Reference-Point Constructions"[A]. Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1993,1-38.
[37]Kovecses, Radden. "Towards a Theory of Metonymy"[A]. In:Panther, K-U, and Gunter Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins,1999,17-59.
[38]Li Yongzhong. A Cognitive Approach to Metonymy in Language[M]. Shanghai:Donghua University Press,2004.
[39]George Lakoff. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[40]Seto, K, "Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche"[A]. Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999, 91-120.
[41]Hankamer. J., Sag. I. "Deep and Surface Anaphora"[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1976, (7):391-426.
[42]朱迎春.深层回指的诸类型及其语用分析[J].浙江工程学院学报,2004,(2)：158-162.
[43]Cornish, F. "Antecedentless' Anaphors:Dexis, Anaphora, or What? Some Evidence from English and French"[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1996, (32):19-40.
[44]Lauri Karttunen. "Pronouns and variables"[A]. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society[C],1969,108-116.
[45]Eva Figes. "Patriarchal Attitudes:Women in Society"[A],1970.
[46]Trabasso et al. Learning and Comprehesion of Text[M]. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum,1995.
[47]Bloomfield, Leonard. Language[M]. New York:Henry Holt,1933. [48] Diane Blakemore. Understanding Utterances[M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1992. [49] K. M. Jaszczolt. Semantics and Pragmatics:Meaning in Language and Discourse[M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press,2004. [50] Leech, G. Principles ofPragmatics[M]. London:Longman,1983.
[51]Mendoza, Otal Campo. Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication[M]. Editorial Comares,2002.
[52]Radden, G., Z. Kovecses. Towards A Theory of Metonymy[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999.
[53]姜望琪.篇章与回指[J].外语学刊,2006,(4)：33-40.
[54]李克.英语语篇回指的认知转喻研究[MA].曲阜师范大学硕士研究生论文,2006.
[55]李佐文,叶慧君.跨联现象与认知推理[J].外语研究,2004,(5)：40-45.
[56]苗兴伟.语篇照应的动态分析[J].外语教学,2001,(6)：17-21.
[57]王义娜.概念参照点：语篇指称解释的认知思路[J].外语学刊,2005,(5)：81-85.
[58]徐赳赳.现代汉语篇章回指研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003.
[2]George Lakoff, Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[3]Aoun Joseph. A Grammar ofAnaphor[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press,1985.
[4]Bent Jacobson. Modern Transformational Grammar[M]. Oxford:Elsevier Science Publishing Company,1986.
[5]Levinson, S. C. "Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora:A Partial Pragmatic Reduction of Binding and Control Phenomena"[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1987, (23):379-434.
[6]M. A. K. Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan. Cohesion in English[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[7]Carter, D. Interpreting Anaphora in Natural Language Texts[M]. Chichester:Ellis Horwood,1987.
[8]Cornish, F. Anaphoric Relations in English and French:A Discourse Perspective [M]. London: Croom Helm,1986.
[9]Wasow, T. Anaphora in Generative Grammar[M]. Ghent:E. Story-Scientia,1979.
[10]Quirk, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M]. London:Longman Press, 1985.
[11]Richards et al. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics[Z]. London: Longman,1992.
[12]Bussmann, H. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics[Z]. London:Routledge,1996.
[13]Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonology. Fourth Edition[Z]. Oxford:Blackwell Press, 1997.
[14]许余龙.篇章回指的功能语用探索-一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[15]Ellis Jeffery. The Logical and Textual Function[M]. London:Batsford,1988.
[16]Chu, C. C. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese[M]. New York:Peter Lang,1998.
[17]McCawley, J. D. The Syntactic Phenomenon of English. Second Edition[M]. Chicago:The
University of Chicago Press,1998.
[18]秦洪武.第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析[J].当代语言学,2001,(1)：55-64.
[19]Lees, R.B., Klima, E. S. "Rules for English Pronominalisation"[J], Language,1963, (39):17-28.
[20]高原.照应词的认知分析[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[21]Reinhart, T. "Definite NP Anaphora and C-command dominions"[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1981, (12): 605-633.
[22]Chomsky, N. Lectures on Governmental and Binding[M]. Dordrecht:Foris Publications,1981.
[23]Grice, P. H. "Logic and Conversation"[A]. In Cole, P. and Morgan J. Syntax and Semantics:Volume 3, Speech Acts [C]. New York:Academic Press,1975,41-58.
[24]Huang, Yan. Anaphora:A Cross-Linguistic Approach[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[25]Kuno, S. Functional Syntax:Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
[26]Brickerton, D. "Some Assertion About Presuppositions About Pronominalization"[A]. In Grossman, R. E. & Vance. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism[C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1975,24-35.
[27]Brown, G, Yule, G Discourse Analysis[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[28]Chafe, W. L. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1994.
[29]Prince, E. F. "Toward a Taxonomy of Existential Presupposition in Discourse"[A]. In Cole,P. Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York:Academic Press,1981,223-249.
[30]Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., Zacharski, R. "Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse"[J]. Language,1993, (69):274-303.
[31]Ariel, M. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedent[M]. London:Routledge,1990.
[32]Gibbs, R. W. Jr. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[33]Stallard, D. "Two Kinds of Metonymy"[A]. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics [C]. Columbus:Ohio State University,1993,87-94.
[34]Nunberg, G. "Transfers of Meaning"[J]. Journal of Semantics,1995, (12):109-132.
[35]Koch, Peter. "Frame and Contiguity:on the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation"[A]. Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999,139-167.
[36]Langacker, Ronald W. "Reference-Point Constructions"[A]. Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1993,1-38.
[37]Kovecses, Radden. "Towards a Theory of Metonymy"[A]. In:Panther, K-U, and Gunter Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins,1999,17-59.
[38]Li Yongzhong. A Cognitive Approach to Metonymy in Language[M]. Shanghai:Donghua University Press,2004.
[39]George Lakoff. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[40]Seto, K, "Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche"[A]. Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999, 91-120.
[41]Hankamer. J., Sag. I. "Deep and Surface Anaphora"[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1976, (7):391-426.
[42]朱迎春.深层回指的诸类型及其语用分析[J].浙江工程学院学报,2004,(2)：158-162.
[43]Cornish, F. "Antecedentless' Anaphors:Dexis, Anaphora, or What? Some Evidence from English and French"[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1996, (32):19-40.
[44]Lauri Karttunen. "Pronouns and variables"[A]. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society[C],1969,108-116.
[45]Eva Figes. "Patriarchal Attitudes:Women in Society"[A],1970.
[46]Trabasso et al. Learning and Comprehesion of Text[M]. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum,1995.
[47]Bloomfield, Leonard. Language[M]. New York:Henry Holt,1933. [48] Diane Blakemore. Understanding Utterances[M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1992. [49] K. M. Jaszczolt. Semantics and Pragmatics:Meaning in Language and Discourse[M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press,2004. [50] Leech, G. Principles ofPragmatics[M]. London:Longman,1983.
[51]Mendoza, Otal Campo. Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication[M]. Editorial Comares,2002.
[52]Radden, G., Z. Kovecses. Towards A Theory of Metonymy[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999.
[53]姜望琪.篇章与回指[J].外语学刊,2006,(4)：33-40.
[54]李克.英语语篇回指的认知转喻研究[MA].曲阜师范大学硕士研究生论文,2006.
[55]李佐文,叶慧君.跨联现象与认知推理[J].外语研究,2004,(5)：40-45.
[56]苗兴伟.语篇照应的动态分析[J].外语教学,2001,(6)：17-21.
[57]王义娜.概念参照点：语篇指称解释的认知思路[J].外语学刊,2005,(5)：81-85.
[58]徐赳赳.现代汉语篇章回指研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003.