汉德宣传性语篇结构差异的政治语法因素—汉、德“企业介绍”语篇研究
|
摘要
大多数学者都认为跨文化语篇的结构存在差异(Kaplan 1966，Scollon／Scollon／Kirkpatrick 2000，陈建平2005)，但是对于不同文化的语篇差异的原因众说纷纭，这取决于学者们的研究角度(Connor 1996)。本研究认为，政治文化语境是构成引起文化差异的核心因素之一，它对语篇使用者的行为有极大的约束作用，因此在“企业自我介绍”这样的公共宣传语篇中也会留下明显的痕迹。有关政治、政治体制以及与政治体制相关的政治行为和语言的关系问题在批评话语分析(van Dijk 1995，Fairclough 1992、200l，J(a|¨)ger 1993)和德国的内容语法研究中(Weisgerber 1949／1950)都有针对性的研究，前人的这些研究试图揭示语篇中体现的权势和社会思潮。而我们更进一步认为，语言使用受制于政治文化语境，因此语篇结构最终呈现某种受政治文化语境约束的性状，本研究称其为“政治语法”，并构成本研究分析语篇的视角。
基于上述思考，本研究在对跨文化语篇对比研究、德国的内容语法研究和批评话语分析的相关成果和研究方法进行回顾之后，又对语篇研究中的政治语法视角进行了阐述，并为了解答在特定政治文化语境的影响下，语篇呈现怎样的差异这一研究问题，而从政治语法的角度提出了“汉、德企业自我介绍语篇在结构上存在怎样的差异?该差异性结构表达怎样的政治文化意义?该具中、德政治文化差异的语言结构怎样体现各自政治话语特征?”的研究问题的三个方面。最终的目标是为了解释跨文化语篇差异的原因。实现该目标的途径如下：一、理论框架；二、研究设计；三、汉、德语篇三个层面的对比分析；四、结合中、德政治文化语境对分析意义的解释。其中，理论框架建立在系统功能语言学的功能观基础之上，按照该功能观，语言研究的目的就是要了解语言怎样为使用而构造。围绕着该研究目的，系统功能语言学提出了针对语言使用(语篇)的语域与体裁理论模式(Eggins／Martin 1997：register and genre theory，R>)，它试图解释交际中的语言(语篇)，以及涉及语言与它的使用语境(社会)之间的关系。我们试图借助系统功能语言学理论和分析方法检视政治语法在语篇中的存在，并分析其功能意义，因此本研究从语言结构层面入手，即对比分析汉、德语篇在篇章、小句和词汇层面上对结构的选择，然后对它们在汉、德企业介绍语篇中的不同表现形式进行对比分析，以揭示其在特定政治文化语境下的概念意义和人际意义。研究语料是汉、德各25篇中德企业的自我介绍。语料中的企业既包括有限责任公司，也有股份制公司。内容都包含自我叙述的部分。分析手段方面，本研究采用了系统功能语言学中的篇章结构语义分析、及物性分析和评价分析。其中，篇章结构语义分析是为了从篇章的角度分析汉、德企业介绍语篇类型的形式图示和内容图示。及物性分析则是对小句结构表达的意义进行分析。而评价分析则通过作者对语法和词汇的选择，分析对人、对人的行为、对事的评价，以发现在特定政治文化语境的影响下作者试图建立的社会关系。
结果显示，汉、德企业介绍语篇在篇章、小句和词汇形式结构层面上存在差异，该差异直接导致了语义差异。篇章层面，汉、德两种语篇分别表达不同的内容。汉语语篇通过首位突出环境因素，强调国家的政策和上级的指导性行为。而在中位才描述企业自身的状况，如企业的产品和服务等。在末位的位置上，语篇又回应首位中的语境，表达企业的责任和决心。德语语篇在前部叙述企业的服务或者产品，后部的内容是对前部内容的回应，即表达企业的行为受益者是客户这样的内容意义。篇章层面上所指示的两种语篇的内容差异又是通过语篇的不同组织方式而达到的，这种不同组织方式反映了作者意欲强调的不同人际政治关系。汉语语篇通过首位位置突出上级领导的主导作用，通过末位位置表达了企业的服从意愿。而德语语篇旨在建立企业和客户的互利关系，表达“您的企业所为是为了您”这样的因果关系，以构建相互依赖的人际关系意义。
在小句层面上，汉、德语篇在表达参与者关系的句子中的成分位置存在差异，汉语语篇中该典型句子条件状语置于句首，该条件句包含国家政策的指导或者上级的领导的内容，例如“在党的领导下”。德语语篇中出现了另外一种典型的句子结构，该种结构中有一个间接宾语，这个间接宾语是客户，是参与者行为的受益方。两种不同的句子形式结构说明，该类汉语小句构建着上级和企业之间的上下级关系，而德语小句旨在构建企业和客户之间的服务和被服务关系。
对于时间的表达，两种语篇也存在差异。汉语语篇中表示未来的词语主要置放在语篇的末位，表达了构建理想社会的愿望。而德语只用现在时，表示语篇作者注重维系现存的关系和状况。
总体上看，语篇的语篇结构和小句语法结构都反映了汉、德语篇的不同话语意义，也就是说，两种语篇均分别通过结构实现了概念功能和人际功能。汉语语篇的篇章结构和小句语法结构显示，国家层面上的领导层的行为对企业形成影响，国家领导制订国家的政策方针，企业遵循和执行国家的政策方针。德语语篇的篇章和小句结构则反映了企业为客户创造收益的客户受益关系。另外，汉语语篇还表达了未来的发展愿望。
词汇层面上的语言要素也对话语意义的形成产生作用。词汇语义以及修辞要素表达出来的差异实际上是语篇和小句结构差异的延续，但它们也同时从政治性的概念和人际意义方面对语篇和小句结构的意义进行了必要的补充。
分析结果表明，汉语语篇三个层面上的结构包含“国家领导制订国家的政策方针，企业遵循和执行国家的政策方针”这样的概念意义，以及“国家层面上的领导层的行为对企业形成影响”这样的人际政治意义。德语语篇的篇章、小句和词汇结构则反映了“企业为客户创造收益，而客户通过企业行为受益”这样一种人际关系和概念意义。表达以上诸种意义的结构对应相应的政治文化意义，因此是政治语法，它使两种语篇显现不同。
结构最终服务于特定的话语，即语言使用旨在描述世界和构建世界，目的当然是影响交际对象或者与外界进行协调。通过两种语篇的对比，我们已经看到，不同的语言工具系统-政治语法-使语篇结构呈现差异，同时构建出不同的话语意义。反过来说，结构的差异实际上是为了表现不同的话语内容，即汉、德两种语篇的差异表象反映了政治语法致力于构建的内容，因为任何一种结构都是作者根据主题内容做出的选择，他意欲突出什么、表述什么，以及建立何种关系都通过结构完成。汉、德语篇结构的差异还在一定程度上反映出政治语法在背后的有力作用，即作者通过语言手段迎合或者构造政治文化语境意义的行为。
该研究具有一定的现实意义，它借助系统功能语言学的理论审视了特定政治文化语境下政治语法在宣传性语篇中的存在。另外，我们还发现了两种语篇的结构和话语特征与本国政治体制的各种规范相吻合，由此表明，政治交际目的在语篇形成中更具逼迫性，即它远胜具体企业语境下的实用交际目的。而这样的政治语法也应该成为我们看待跨文化语篇差异的视角，因为在语言使用过程中，即在人们试图通过语言构建现实的过程中，不同社会文化中的现实政治最深刻地影响了人的思维和行为。同时，政治语法研究对外语教学和翻译工作都有一定的理论和实用价值。外语教学和翻译应重视结构背后的深刻政治文化意义。但是本研究也有一定的局限性，例如未能大面积地在语篇中找出特定的结构对应特定的政治文化意义，未顾及社会文化的历时变迁。今后同类型的研究，应更进一步地深入到社会文化语境之中，以核实和精确阐释语篇的意义，例如可以采取调查问卷、访谈等定量分析方式对企业员工的行为和思想偏向进行研究，或者配合历时语篇对比研究发现政治语法在一国文化中的总体特征。
Research in the field of intercultural communication studies has revealed thatdifferent cultures tend to have different preferential patterns in discourse (Kaplan1966, Scollon/ Scollon/ Kirkpatrick 2000, Chen Jianping 2005) . With regard to thetext differences across cultures, different studies have adopted different approaches intheir research. Due to the influence of the political system that permeates every cornerof a society, this study is an attempt to explore the relationship betweensocial-political environment and discourse through a comparative analysis of thestructural differences between Chinese and German public promotional discourse.The reserch data will be based on one specific aspect of discourse, i.e., theintroduction sections of the Brochures used by Chinese and German Enterprises forpublic promotional purposes. Critical discourse analysis (van Dijk 1995, Fairclough1992, 2001, J(a|¨)ger 1993 ) and German content grammar research (Weisgerber1949/1950) have suggested that there is an interrelatedness between political systemand discourse. However, previous studies have focus their attention on revealingpower and social relations in discourse. The present study therefore attempts to lookat another dimension, a comparison of the structural differences in Chinese andGerman promotional discourse from the perspective of political grammar, atheoretical notion that will be explored in the study for an explanation of thecross-cultural differences.
Three related research questions are asked: What are the structural differences inthe Chinese and German promotional discourse? What social-political meaning arereflected in these structural differences? What political-grammatical characteristicsare represented in these structural differences in the Chinese vs. Germansocial-political context respectively? The theoretical framework of the research isbased on the theory of systemic functional grammar, which attempts to interpretlanguage (text) in communication and the relation between language use and its socialcontext. Here, language is considered as a meaning system, creating three kinds of discourse meanings: ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaningat the different levels of discourse. To probe into the discourse, the functionalanalytical framework is considered in this study the most appropriate approach for theanalysis of the three kinds of discourse meanings and the futher exploration of thedevelopment of meanings in different social-cultural contexts.
With reference to the analytical framework adapted from systemic functionalgrammar, the study starts with the analysis of language structures for their discoursemeaning. To be more specifically, it makes a contrastive analysis of the structures atdifferent levels of the texts, clauses and words based on the promotional discoursechosen from the introduction texts of Chinese and German enterprises. Furthercontrastive analysis was conducted on the different structural types of the Chinese andGerman discourse that reveal the political ideational meaning and interpersonalpolitical meaning in the two social contexts respectively.
As for the analytical methods, the study adopts the effective generic potentialanalysis, transitive analysis and evaluative analysis methods deriving from thesystemic functional linguistics. The generic potential analysis aims at discussing theformal schema and content schema of the Chinese and German introduction texts. Thetransitive analysis is to analyze the aspects of participants, target and circumstancewhere utterances are expressed. It mainly focuses on the relationship between theparticipants, the activities that the participants take part in and the environments andcontents involved. Therefore, its aim is to understand and analyze the politicalcontents in the text. In terms of the evaluative analysis, it does not only evaluates theauthor's attitude, others' act and events, but also finds out the social relation that theauthor tries to establish under the influence of the political environment. Both thetransitive analysis and the evaluative analysis are involved at the two levels ofanalysis - clausal structure and word choice.
The results of the analysis show that the differences of formal structure directlylead to the semantic discrepancies. From the textual aspect, Chinese text and Germantext represent different contents. Chinese text highlights political-environmentalfactors and emphasizes national policies and instructive behavior of the higher authorities in the initial position. It is only in the middle position where it begins aself-introduction of the conditions of the enterprises, such as the products and itsservices. Then in the ending position, the text recalls the context of the initial positionto present the responsibilities and determinations of enterprises. However, Germantext narrates the products and services of enterprises in the front part and restate thecontent again in the final part, emphasizing what the enterprises will do for thebenefits of the customers. At the textual level, the different contents of the texts alsoshow different organizing forms that reflect different interpersonal relationship ofpolitics. Chinese text focuses on the leading role of higher authorities in the initialposition and in the ending position it shows the enterprises' willingness to be inobedience, while in German text, it attaches great importance to the establishment of amutual-benefit relationship and forms the cause-effect relation by describing "whatyour enterprises have done just for your service" , in order to establish reliablerelationships with the customer.
On the clausal level, there are differences of establishing participants'relationship in the position of the component parts between Chinese and German texts.In Chinese text, the typical structures of conditional adverbial clauses are at thebeginning of a sentence, which contains the guide of the national policies and thecontent of the higher authorities, for example, with phrases like "under the leadershipof the Party". In German text, other typical structures are involved. There is anindirect object that is customer, who is a benefited participant. Two different formalstructures of the clauses show that Chinese clauses establish the higher and lowerrelationship between higher authorities and enterprises, while German clausesestablish the relationship of serving others and being served.
As for the use of tenses, there are also differences between the two languages. Inthe Chinese texts, the words used for expressing future meanings are always put at theend of the clause to convey the author's desire of constructing an ideal society. But inthe German texts, the present tense is only used to show what the close attention ispaid to maintain the present relation and situation.
Overall, both textual and clausal structures reflect different discourse meaningsin Chinese and German, that is to say, the two text groups have accomplishedinterpersonal function and ideational function by means of their discourse structures.In the Chinese text, the textual structure and clausal structure show that the actperformed by the national leaders have great influence on enterprises. Thegovernment formulates the national polices which should be followed and carried outby the enterprises. However, the textual and clausal structures in German text only setup the relationship between the enterprises which make profits for customers and thecustomers who are benefited. In addition, the Chinese text also conveys the desire forthe future development.
On the word level, it has been revealed that language elements have an effect onthe formation of discourse meaning. In fact, the differences derived from the wordmeanings and rhetoric elements parrallel with the differences of the textual andclausal structures. Meanwhile, from the aspects of political concept and interpersonalmeaning, the meanings of the textual and clausal structures are also discussed. Forinstance, the research results show that the act performed by "the higher leaders" andthe polices formulated by "them" are often the guide of the "enterprises" in theChinese text, which is also reflected by semantic meaning and rhetoric meaning. Firstof all, the rhetoric device "quotation" is adopted in Chinese discourse. For example,the quotations like "the leader's speech" or "state policies and principles" are put intothe text. Among them, the frequently quoted policies and principles are the "scientificconcepts of development", together with other similar words or phrases such as"scientific development", and "development strategy", "leap-forward development"and so on. Thus, the "quotations" represent that the enterprises are subordinate to thehigher authorities. The quoted word meanings like "development" also constitute thetheme and content of the discourse, as is called ideational meaning. Meanwhile, thequasi-fixed phrases that are consistent with the structure form aim at highlighting thatthe quotations "state policies and principles" and "orders from higher authorities" arecentered on the theme "development". More importantly, the consistency in form not only highlights the content but also makes the language persuadable, whichstrengthens the tone of the order.
From the above brief summary of the research results, it appears that theideational meaning in the Chinese text can be observed in the structures to reflect "thepolicies formulated by the state government and the policies obeyed and carried outby the enterprises" as well as the interpersonal political meaning like " the actperformed by the leaders in the form of the state authorities gives an impact on theenterprises". In the German text, the structures of the texts, clauses and words reflecta kind of interpersonal political relation and ideational meaning, for example, "theenterprises make profits for the customers and the customers are benefited from whatthe enterprises have done". All these structures are corresponding with the politicalmeaning, which can be called the political grammar, which is the key factor thatexplains the differences in discourse structures across the two cultures.
Langugage structures are used to serve specific discourse functions. That is tosay, language use often aims at describing and constructing the world and willcertainly have influence on the communicative subjects or the coordination with theoutside world. Through the comparison of the discourses across the two cultures, itcan be seen that different language systems have different political grammarsrepresented by the differences in textual structures and their construction of differentdiscourse meanings. This also means that the differences between Chinese andGerman discourses reflect different political grammars through which thesocial-political meanings of the specific culture are realized by a set of structures indiscourse. In other words, the two kinds of discourses reflect different politicalsystems between the two countries, as the differences of the structures and theconstructed discourse themes and contents indicate typical political characteristics ofthe two cultures and coincide with the political systems of the two countries.
This study is of certain realistic significance, for it tends to prove that politicalgrammar is a sociolinguistic phenomenon existing in every language. Besides, wehave also found that the two kinds of the text structures and discourse featurescoincide with the social-political system of each respective country, showing that in the process of language use, the politics of a culture deeply influences people'sthoughts and act at every levels of discourse. Accordingly, this study on politicalgrammar, to some degree, also carry important theoretical significance and practicalvalue for foreign language teaching and translation research. Foreign languageteaching and translation activities cannot remain at the level of language grammar orthe correctness of contents. It is highly important to have a better understanding of theprofound social meanings in language structures in discourse.
However, there are also limitations in the study. For example, the researchproject has not been able to conduct a more extensive study covering more areas ofdiscourse to find out more specific structures that are corresponding to specific socialpolitical meaning in different social contexts. It is also desireable to conduct furtherinvestigation based on data from questionnaires and interviews in order to find out thepolitical orientation of employees of the enterprises from the two different cultures.This remains our motivation for further research in the future.
基于上述思考，本研究在对跨文化语篇对比研究、德国的内容语法研究和批评话语分析的相关成果和研究方法进行回顾之后，又对语篇研究中的政治语法视角进行了阐述，并为了解答在特定政治文化语境的影响下，语篇呈现怎样的差异这一研究问题，而从政治语法的角度提出了“汉、德企业自我介绍语篇在结构上存在怎样的差异?该差异性结构表达怎样的政治文化意义?该具中、德政治文化差异的语言结构怎样体现各自政治话语特征?”的研究问题的三个方面。最终的目标是为了解释跨文化语篇差异的原因。实现该目标的途径如下：一、理论框架；二、研究设计；三、汉、德语篇三个层面的对比分析；四、结合中、德政治文化语境对分析意义的解释。其中，理论框架建立在系统功能语言学的功能观基础之上，按照该功能观，语言研究的目的就是要了解语言怎样为使用而构造。围绕着该研究目的，系统功能语言学提出了针对语言使用(语篇)的语域与体裁理论模式(Eggins／Martin 1997：register and genre theory，R>)，它试图解释交际中的语言(语篇)，以及涉及语言与它的使用语境(社会)之间的关系。我们试图借助系统功能语言学理论和分析方法检视政治语法在语篇中的存在，并分析其功能意义，因此本研究从语言结构层面入手，即对比分析汉、德语篇在篇章、小句和词汇层面上对结构的选择，然后对它们在汉、德企业介绍语篇中的不同表现形式进行对比分析，以揭示其在特定政治文化语境下的概念意义和人际意义。研究语料是汉、德各25篇中德企业的自我介绍。语料中的企业既包括有限责任公司，也有股份制公司。内容都包含自我叙述的部分。分析手段方面，本研究采用了系统功能语言学中的篇章结构语义分析、及物性分析和评价分析。其中，篇章结构语义分析是为了从篇章的角度分析汉、德企业介绍语篇类型的形式图示和内容图示。及物性分析则是对小句结构表达的意义进行分析。而评价分析则通过作者对语法和词汇的选择，分析对人、对人的行为、对事的评价，以发现在特定政治文化语境的影响下作者试图建立的社会关系。
结果显示，汉、德企业介绍语篇在篇章、小句和词汇形式结构层面上存在差异，该差异直接导致了语义差异。篇章层面，汉、德两种语篇分别表达不同的内容。汉语语篇通过首位突出环境因素，强调国家的政策和上级的指导性行为。而在中位才描述企业自身的状况，如企业的产品和服务等。在末位的位置上，语篇又回应首位中的语境，表达企业的责任和决心。德语语篇在前部叙述企业的服务或者产品，后部的内容是对前部内容的回应，即表达企业的行为受益者是客户这样的内容意义。篇章层面上所指示的两种语篇的内容差异又是通过语篇的不同组织方式而达到的，这种不同组织方式反映了作者意欲强调的不同人际政治关系。汉语语篇通过首位位置突出上级领导的主导作用，通过末位位置表达了企业的服从意愿。而德语语篇旨在建立企业和客户的互利关系，表达“您的企业所为是为了您”这样的因果关系，以构建相互依赖的人际关系意义。
在小句层面上，汉、德语篇在表达参与者关系的句子中的成分位置存在差异，汉语语篇中该典型句子条件状语置于句首，该条件句包含国家政策的指导或者上级的领导的内容，例如“在党的领导下”。德语语篇中出现了另外一种典型的句子结构，该种结构中有一个间接宾语，这个间接宾语是客户，是参与者行为的受益方。两种不同的句子形式结构说明，该类汉语小句构建着上级和企业之间的上下级关系，而德语小句旨在构建企业和客户之间的服务和被服务关系。
对于时间的表达，两种语篇也存在差异。汉语语篇中表示未来的词语主要置放在语篇的末位，表达了构建理想社会的愿望。而德语只用现在时，表示语篇作者注重维系现存的关系和状况。
总体上看，语篇的语篇结构和小句语法结构都反映了汉、德语篇的不同话语意义，也就是说，两种语篇均分别通过结构实现了概念功能和人际功能。汉语语篇的篇章结构和小句语法结构显示，国家层面上的领导层的行为对企业形成影响，国家领导制订国家的政策方针，企业遵循和执行国家的政策方针。德语语篇的篇章和小句结构则反映了企业为客户创造收益的客户受益关系。另外，汉语语篇还表达了未来的发展愿望。
词汇层面上的语言要素也对话语意义的形成产生作用。词汇语义以及修辞要素表达出来的差异实际上是语篇和小句结构差异的延续，但它们也同时从政治性的概念和人际意义方面对语篇和小句结构的意义进行了必要的补充。
分析结果表明，汉语语篇三个层面上的结构包含“国家领导制订国家的政策方针，企业遵循和执行国家的政策方针”这样的概念意义，以及“国家层面上的领导层的行为对企业形成影响”这样的人际政治意义。德语语篇的篇章、小句和词汇结构则反映了“企业为客户创造收益，而客户通过企业行为受益”这样一种人际关系和概念意义。表达以上诸种意义的结构对应相应的政治文化意义，因此是政治语法，它使两种语篇显现不同。
结构最终服务于特定的话语，即语言使用旨在描述世界和构建世界，目的当然是影响交际对象或者与外界进行协调。通过两种语篇的对比，我们已经看到，不同的语言工具系统-政治语法-使语篇结构呈现差异，同时构建出不同的话语意义。反过来说，结构的差异实际上是为了表现不同的话语内容，即汉、德两种语篇的差异表象反映了政治语法致力于构建的内容，因为任何一种结构都是作者根据主题内容做出的选择，他意欲突出什么、表述什么，以及建立何种关系都通过结构完成。汉、德语篇结构的差异还在一定程度上反映出政治语法在背后的有力作用，即作者通过语言手段迎合或者构造政治文化语境意义的行为。
该研究具有一定的现实意义，它借助系统功能语言学的理论审视了特定政治文化语境下政治语法在宣传性语篇中的存在。另外，我们还发现了两种语篇的结构和话语特征与本国政治体制的各种规范相吻合，由此表明，政治交际目的在语篇形成中更具逼迫性，即它远胜具体企业语境下的实用交际目的。而这样的政治语法也应该成为我们看待跨文化语篇差异的视角，因为在语言使用过程中，即在人们试图通过语言构建现实的过程中，不同社会文化中的现实政治最深刻地影响了人的思维和行为。同时，政治语法研究对外语教学和翻译工作都有一定的理论和实用价值。外语教学和翻译应重视结构背后的深刻政治文化意义。但是本研究也有一定的局限性，例如未能大面积地在语篇中找出特定的结构对应特定的政治文化意义，未顾及社会文化的历时变迁。今后同类型的研究，应更进一步地深入到社会文化语境之中，以核实和精确阐释语篇的意义，例如可以采取调查问卷、访谈等定量分析方式对企业员工的行为和思想偏向进行研究，或者配合历时语篇对比研究发现政治语法在一国文化中的总体特征。
Research in the field of intercultural communication studies has revealed thatdifferent cultures tend to have different preferential patterns in discourse (Kaplan1966, Scollon/ Scollon/ Kirkpatrick 2000, Chen Jianping 2005) . With regard to thetext differences across cultures, different studies have adopted different approaches intheir research. Due to the influence of the political system that permeates every cornerof a society, this study is an attempt to explore the relationship betweensocial-political environment and discourse through a comparative analysis of thestructural differences between Chinese and German public promotional discourse.The reserch data will be based on one specific aspect of discourse, i.e., theintroduction sections of the Brochures used by Chinese and German Enterprises forpublic promotional purposes. Critical discourse analysis (van Dijk 1995, Fairclough1992, 2001, J(a|¨)ger 1993 ) and German content grammar research (Weisgerber1949/1950) have suggested that there is an interrelatedness between political systemand discourse. However, previous studies have focus their attention on revealingpower and social relations in discourse. The present study therefore attempts to lookat another dimension, a comparison of the structural differences in Chinese andGerman promotional discourse from the perspective of political grammar, atheoretical notion that will be explored in the study for an explanation of thecross-cultural differences.
Three related research questions are asked: What are the structural differences inthe Chinese and German promotional discourse? What social-political meaning arereflected in these structural differences? What political-grammatical characteristicsare represented in these structural differences in the Chinese vs. Germansocial-political context respectively? The theoretical framework of the research isbased on the theory of systemic functional grammar, which attempts to interpretlanguage (text) in communication and the relation between language use and its socialcontext. Here, language is considered as a meaning system, creating three kinds of discourse meanings: ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaningat the different levels of discourse. To probe into the discourse, the functionalanalytical framework is considered in this study the most appropriate approach for theanalysis of the three kinds of discourse meanings and the futher exploration of thedevelopment of meanings in different social-cultural contexts.
With reference to the analytical framework adapted from systemic functionalgrammar, the study starts with the analysis of language structures for their discoursemeaning. To be more specifically, it makes a contrastive analysis of the structures atdifferent levels of the texts, clauses and words based on the promotional discoursechosen from the introduction texts of Chinese and German enterprises. Furthercontrastive analysis was conducted on the different structural types of the Chinese andGerman discourse that reveal the political ideational meaning and interpersonalpolitical meaning in the two social contexts respectively.
As for the analytical methods, the study adopts the effective generic potentialanalysis, transitive analysis and evaluative analysis methods deriving from thesystemic functional linguistics. The generic potential analysis aims at discussing theformal schema and content schema of the Chinese and German introduction texts. Thetransitive analysis is to analyze the aspects of participants, target and circumstancewhere utterances are expressed. It mainly focuses on the relationship between theparticipants, the activities that the participants take part in and the environments andcontents involved. Therefore, its aim is to understand and analyze the politicalcontents in the text. In terms of the evaluative analysis, it does not only evaluates theauthor's attitude, others' act and events, but also finds out the social relation that theauthor tries to establish under the influence of the political environment. Both thetransitive analysis and the evaluative analysis are involved at the two levels ofanalysis - clausal structure and word choice.
The results of the analysis show that the differences of formal structure directlylead to the semantic discrepancies. From the textual aspect, Chinese text and Germantext represent different contents. Chinese text highlights political-environmentalfactors and emphasizes national policies and instructive behavior of the higher authorities in the initial position. It is only in the middle position where it begins aself-introduction of the conditions of the enterprises, such as the products and itsservices. Then in the ending position, the text recalls the context of the initial positionto present the responsibilities and determinations of enterprises. However, Germantext narrates the products and services of enterprises in the front part and restate thecontent again in the final part, emphasizing what the enterprises will do for thebenefits of the customers. At the textual level, the different contents of the texts alsoshow different organizing forms that reflect different interpersonal relationship ofpolitics. Chinese text focuses on the leading role of higher authorities in the initialposition and in the ending position it shows the enterprises' willingness to be inobedience, while in German text, it attaches great importance to the establishment of amutual-benefit relationship and forms the cause-effect relation by describing "whatyour enterprises have done just for your service" , in order to establish reliablerelationships with the customer.
On the clausal level, there are differences of establishing participants'relationship in the position of the component parts between Chinese and German texts.In Chinese text, the typical structures of conditional adverbial clauses are at thebeginning of a sentence, which contains the guide of the national policies and thecontent of the higher authorities, for example, with phrases like "under the leadershipof the Party". In German text, other typical structures are involved. There is anindirect object that is customer, who is a benefited participant. Two different formalstructures of the clauses show that Chinese clauses establish the higher and lowerrelationship between higher authorities and enterprises, while German clausesestablish the relationship of serving others and being served.
As for the use of tenses, there are also differences between the two languages. Inthe Chinese texts, the words used for expressing future meanings are always put at theend of the clause to convey the author's desire of constructing an ideal society. But inthe German texts, the present tense is only used to show what the close attention ispaid to maintain the present relation and situation.
Overall, both textual and clausal structures reflect different discourse meaningsin Chinese and German, that is to say, the two text groups have accomplishedinterpersonal function and ideational function by means of their discourse structures.In the Chinese text, the textual structure and clausal structure show that the actperformed by the national leaders have great influence on enterprises. Thegovernment formulates the national polices which should be followed and carried outby the enterprises. However, the textual and clausal structures in German text only setup the relationship between the enterprises which make profits for customers and thecustomers who are benefited. In addition, the Chinese text also conveys the desire forthe future development.
On the word level, it has been revealed that language elements have an effect onthe formation of discourse meaning. In fact, the differences derived from the wordmeanings and rhetoric elements parrallel with the differences of the textual andclausal structures. Meanwhile, from the aspects of political concept and interpersonalmeaning, the meanings of the textual and clausal structures are also discussed. Forinstance, the research results show that the act performed by "the higher leaders" andthe polices formulated by "them" are often the guide of the "enterprises" in theChinese text, which is also reflected by semantic meaning and rhetoric meaning. Firstof all, the rhetoric device "quotation" is adopted in Chinese discourse. For example,the quotations like "the leader's speech" or "state policies and principles" are put intothe text. Among them, the frequently quoted policies and principles are the "scientificconcepts of development", together with other similar words or phrases such as"scientific development", and "development strategy", "leap-forward development"and so on. Thus, the "quotations" represent that the enterprises are subordinate to thehigher authorities. The quoted word meanings like "development" also constitute thetheme and content of the discourse, as is called ideational meaning. Meanwhile, thequasi-fixed phrases that are consistent with the structure form aim at highlighting thatthe quotations "state policies and principles" and "orders from higher authorities" arecentered on the theme "development". More importantly, the consistency in form not only highlights the content but also makes the language persuadable, whichstrengthens the tone of the order.
From the above brief summary of the research results, it appears that theideational meaning in the Chinese text can be observed in the structures to reflect "thepolicies formulated by the state government and the policies obeyed and carried outby the enterprises" as well as the interpersonal political meaning like " the actperformed by the leaders in the form of the state authorities gives an impact on theenterprises". In the German text, the structures of the texts, clauses and words reflecta kind of interpersonal political relation and ideational meaning, for example, "theenterprises make profits for the customers and the customers are benefited from whatthe enterprises have done". All these structures are corresponding with the politicalmeaning, which can be called the political grammar, which is the key factor thatexplains the differences in discourse structures across the two cultures.
Langugage structures are used to serve specific discourse functions. That is tosay, language use often aims at describing and constructing the world and willcertainly have influence on the communicative subjects or the coordination with theoutside world. Through the comparison of the discourses across the two cultures, itcan be seen that different language systems have different political grammarsrepresented by the differences in textual structures and their construction of differentdiscourse meanings. This also means that the differences between Chinese andGerman discourses reflect different political grammars through which thesocial-political meanings of the specific culture are realized by a set of structures indiscourse. In other words, the two kinds of discourses reflect different politicalsystems between the two countries, as the differences of the structures and theconstructed discourse themes and contents indicate typical political characteristics ofthe two cultures and coincide with the political systems of the two countries.
This study is of certain realistic significance, for it tends to prove that politicalgrammar is a sociolinguistic phenomenon existing in every language. Besides, wehave also found that the two kinds of the text structures and discourse featurescoincide with the social-political system of each respective country, showing that in the process of language use, the politics of a culture deeply influences people'sthoughts and act at every levels of discourse. Accordingly, this study on politicalgrammar, to some degree, also carry important theoretical significance and practicalvalue for foreign language teaching and translation research. Foreign languageteaching and translation activities cannot remain at the level of language grammar orthe correctness of contents. It is highly important to have a better understanding of theprofound social meanings in language structures in discourse.
However, there are also limitations in the study. For example, the researchproject has not been able to conduct a more extensive study covering more areas ofdiscourse to find out more specific structures that are corresponding to specific socialpolitical meaning in different social contexts. It is also desireable to conduct furtherinvestigation based on data from questionnaires and interviews in order to find out thepolitical orientation of employees of the enterprises from the two different cultures.This remains our motivation for further research in the future.
引文
Akenda, Jean C. K. Kulturelle Identitat und interkulturelle Kommunikation [M].Frankfurt a. Main: IKO, 2004
Anderson, J.R. Kognitive Psychologie[M]. Heidelberg: Spektrum, 1996
Austin, J. L. How to do things with words[M]. New York: Oxford UP, 1962
Bakthin, M.M. The Dialogic Imagination. Eds. and trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist[M]. Texas: University of Texas Press, 1981
Bauer, G. Sprache und Sprachlosigkeit im "Dritten Reich"[M].Koln, 1988
de Beaugrande, R.-A./Dressler, U.-W. Einfuhrung in die Textlinguistik[M].Tubingen, 1981
Bergmann, J. R. / Luckmann, T. Reconstructive genres of everyday communication.In U. Quasthoff (ed.): Aspects of oral communication[C]. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995
Berkenkotter, C. / Huckin, T. N. Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. In: C. Berkenkotter / Huckin (eds.):Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power[C], 1-25. Hillsadale: Lawrence Erlbaum,1995
Bhatia, V. K. Analysing genre: language use in professional settings[M]. New York:Longman Group, UK Limited, 1993
Bindenkopf,K. Politik und Sprache, 1973. In:Heringer (Hg.):Holzfeuer im holzernen Ofen. Aufsatze zur politischen Sprachkritik[C]. Tubingen, 1982
Bloor, T./Bloor, M. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach[M].London: Edward Arnold/Beijing : Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1995/2001
Blum-Kulka/House, J./Kasper, G. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies[C] .Norwood, 1989
Bottger, C. Genre-mixing in business communication. In: Juliane, H. (ed.):Multilingual Communication[C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 2004
Brecht, B. Gesamelte Werke[M]. Bd. 9, Werkausgabe edition suhrkamp. Frankfurt,1967
Brinker, K. Linguistische Textanalyse: eine Einf(u|¨)hrung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden[M]. 5. durchges. Und erg. Aufl. Berlin: Erichi Schmidt, 2001
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987
Buhlmann, R./Fearms. A./Leimbaeher, E. Wirtschaftsdeutsch von A-Z. Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch[M]. Langenscheidt, 1999
Buscha, J./Freudenberg-Findeisen, R./Forstreuter, E./Koch, H./Kuntzsch, L. Grammatik in Feldern[M]. Hueber, 2006
B(u|¨)chle, K. "Briefkontakte"-Aspekte eines interkulturellen & interlingualen Textvergleichs[M]. In: Kultur und Sprache, Berliner Beitr(a|¨)ge zu Deutsch als Fremdsprachel, 1991: 19-30
Campell, C. P. Rhetorical ethos: A Bridge between High-Context and Low-Context Cultures? In: S. Niemeier, C. P. Cambell and R. Dirven(eds.): The Cultural Context in Business Communication[C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988: 31-47.
Carrell, P. L./Eisterhold, J. C. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 18, 1983: 553-573
Chao, Y. R. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese[M]. Calif.: University of California Press, 1968
Clyne, M. Zu kulturellen Unterschieden in der Produktion und Wahrnehmung englischer und deutscher wissenschaftlicher Texte[J]. Info DaF 18, 1991: 457-474.
Clyne, M. Pragmatik, Textstruktur und kulturelle Werte. Eine interkulturelle Perspektive[C]. In: Schr(o|¨)der, Hartmut(Hg.): Fachtextpragmatik(=Forum f(u|¨)r Fachsprachenforschung; 19). T(u|¨)bingen: Narr, 1993: 3-18.
Clyne, M./Hoeks, J./Kreutz, H-J. Cross-cultural responses to academic discourse patterns[J]. In: Folia Linguistica 22, 1988: 457-474.
Coe，R．M．／胡曙中．英汉对比修辞研究初探[J]．《外国语》，第2期，1989：40-47
Connor, U. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of second-language Writing[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996
Cramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching[M]. Oxford University Press, 1993
van Dijk, T. Textwissenschaft. Eine interdisziplinare Einfuhrung[M]. Tubingen, 1980
van Dijk, T. Discourse semantics and ideology[J]. In: Discourse & Society, 1995 (4):243-289
Duden.Deutsches Universal worterbuch[M]. Mannheim/Wien/Zurich: Dudenverlag,2000
Duwendag, D. Golbalisierung im Kreuzfeuer der Kritik[M]. Baden-Baden: Nomos,2006
Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic-Functional Linguistic[M]. London: Pinter,1994
Eggins, S./Martin, J. R. Genres and Registers of Discourse[C]. In: van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage, 1997
Ehlich, K. Interkulturelle Kommunikation[C]. In: Goebl, Hans/Nelde, Peter/Stary,Zdenek/Wolck, Wolfgang (Hgg.): Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenossischer Forschung. 1. Halbband (= HSK; 12.1). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1996: 920-931
Fairclough, N. Language and Power[M]. London: Longman, 1989/2001
Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change[M]. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992
Fairclough, N. Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse:the universities[J]. In: Discourse and Society 4, 1993: 133-168
Fairclough, N. Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research[M]. London and New Jork: Routledge, 2003
Fix, Ulla (Hrsg.). Ritualitat in der Kommunikation der DDR. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang,1998
Folman/Conor. Intercultural Rhetorical Differences in Composing a Research Papeer.International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference[J].Vancouver, British Columbia, 1992
Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish[M]. London: Tavistock, 1977
Fowler, R. Critical Linguistics[C]. In: Malmkjar, K. (ed.), The Linguistics Encycolopedia. London: Routledge, 1991
Freedman, A. Beyond the text: towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1999, 33,4: 764-767.
Fromm, E. Haben oder Sein. Die seelischen Grundlagen einer neuen Gesellschaft[J].GA-Gesamtausgabe, Bd. 2. Deutsche Verlags-Anstadt, 1999
Gartner, D. Vom Sekretardeutsch zur Kommerzsprache-Sprachmanipulation gestern und heute[C]. In: Fix, U. Ritualitat in der Kommunikation der DDR. Frankfurt, 1998
Gipper, H. Sprachliches Realitatsprinzip[M]. Fischer Verlag, 1972
Glinz, H. Deutsche Syntax[M]. Dritte, durch einen Nachtrag erweiterte Auflage.Stuttgart: Metzler, 1970
Gnutzmann, C. Abstracs und ,Zusammenfassungen im deutsch-englischen Vergleich:Das Passiv als interkulturelles und teiltextdifferenzierendes Signal[M]. In: Muller,
Bernd-Dietrich (Hg): Interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation. Munchen: Iudicium,1991: 363-378
Goffman, E. Wir alle spielen Theater [M]. Munchen: Piper, 1973
Gorman, T. P./Purves, A.C./Degenhart. R. E. The IEA Study of Written Composition 1: The International Writing Tasks and Scoring Scales[M]. New York,Pergamon Press, 1988
Granet, M. Das chnesiche Denken[M]. Frankfurt, 1985
Grice, H.P. Studies in the way of words[M]. Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1989
Gulich, E. Konventionelle Muster und kommunikative Funktionen von Alltagserzahlungen[C]. In: Ehiich, K. (Hg.): Erzahlen im Alltag. Frankfurt, 1980
Gulich, E/Raible, W. Linguistische Textmodelle[M]. Munchen, 1977
Gumperz, J.J. Communicative Competence Revisisted[C]. In: D. Schiffrin (ed.):Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Cambridge, 1984:278-289
Gumperz, J.J./Jupp, T.C/Roberts, C. Grosstalk: A Study of Cross-Cultural Communication[M]. Southall, 1979
Gunthner, S. Interkulturelle Aspekte von Schreibstilen: Zur Verwendung von Sprichwortern und Routineformeln in Deutschaufsatzen chinesischer Dertschlerner/innen[C].. In: M. Lieber, J, Posser (Hg.): Texte Schreiben im Germanistik- Studium. Munchen: ludicium, 1988: 145-159.
Gunthner, S. Diskursstrategien in der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Analyse deutsch-chinesischer Gesprache[M]. Tubingen, 1993
Gunthner, S./Rothenhausler, R. Interethnische Kommunikation zwischen Deutschen und Chinesen[J]. In: Info DaF. 1986: 304-309
Hall, E. T. Beyond culture[M]. Garden City. New Your: Anchor, 1976:
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2~(nd) ed. London: Edward Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1994/2000
Halliday, M. A. K. Language and the Reshaping of Human Experience[C]. In: Bessie Dendrinos (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth international Symposium on Historical Discourse Analysis, Athens: University off Athens Press, 1995
Halliday, M.A. K./ Hasan, R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman & Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1976/2001
Halliday, M. A. K. /Hasan, R. Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective[M]. Oxford University Press, 1989
Halliday, M.A.K. / Martin, J.R. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power[M].London: Falmer, 1993
Halliday, M.A.K. / Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition[M]. London: Cassell, 1999
Harweg,R. Pronomina und Textkonstitution[M]. Miinchen: Wilhelm Fink, 1979
Hatim, B. Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics[M]. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1997
Heinemann, W./Viehweger,D. Textlinguistik. Eine Einfuhrung[M]. Tubingen, 1991
HeiBenbuttel, H. Das Textbuch[J]. Neuwied, Berlin, 1970
Hinds, J. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typoIogy[C]. In: U. Connor / R.B. Kaplan (eds.). Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley, 1987
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. H. The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth[J]. Organisational Dynamics, 16, 4, 1988: 4-21
Holz, H. H. Chinas Problem der Kultur-Komparatistik[J]. LiLi 61, 1986: 65-84.
House, J. Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited[M]. T(u|¨)bingen: Gunter Narr, 1997
House, J./Kasper, G. Politeness markers in English and German[C]. In: Coulmas, F. (Hrsg.): Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague, Paris, New York, 1981: 157-186.
Humboldt, W.v.(U|¨)ber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluβ auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts[M]. Posthum, 1836.
中文版：姚小平译，《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》，商务印书馆，1999
Hupfer, J. Diskurs und Politik. Frankfurt[M]. Opladen, 1991
J(a|¨)ger, S. Einf(u|¨)hrung in die kritische Diskursanalyse[M]. Duisburg: Diss, 1993
Janich, N. Werbesprache. Ein Arbeitsbuch[M]. 3. Auflage, T(u|¨)bingen: Gunter Narr, 2003
Kaplan, R. B. Cultur Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education[C]. In: Language Learning 16, 1966: 1-20.
Kaplan, R.B. Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of composition[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1(4), 1967: 10-16.
Kaplan, R.B. Contrastive rhetoric: Some implications for the writing process[C]. In: A. Freedman u. a.(Hg.): Learning to write: First language & second language. London, 1983: 136-161.
Kaplan, R.B. Culture Thought Patterns Revisited[C]. In: U. Connor und R. B. Kaplan (Hg.): Writing Across Languages: Analysis of 12 Text. Reading, Mass, 1987: 9-21
Kaplan, R.B. Contrastive rhetoric and discourse analysis: Who writes what to whom? When? In what circumstances?[C] In: Sarangi, S., / Coulthard, M.(eds.). Discourse and Social Life. New York: Longman, 2000: 82-101
Kirkpatrick, A. Information sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request[J].Anthropological Linguistics, 33(2), 1991:183-203
Kirkpatrick, A. Information sequencingg in Mandarin in Modern Standard Chinese[D]. Dissertation, Australian National University, 1993
Klemperer, V. LTI[M]. Leipzig: Reclame, 10. Auflage, 1847/1990
Kramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press/上海外语教育出版社, 1993/1999
Kopf, D. W. Intercultural Encounters[M]. Colorado: Morton Publishing Company,1991
Kress,G./ Hodge,R. Language as Ideology[M] .London: Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979
Korn, K. Sprache in der verwalteten Welt[M]. M(?)nchen: dtv 79, 1962
Krause,J. Selbstdarstellung der Unternehmen im Internet [M]. D(?)sseldorf:Schmidtlein, 2003
Kress, G./Hodge, R. Language as Ideology[M]. London:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979
Kress, G./Leite-Garcia, R./van Leeuwen, T. Dicourse Semiotics[C]. In: v. Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Condon: Academic Press, 1985
Leech, G. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry[M].London: Longman, 1969
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. New York: Longman, 1983
Leech, G. & Short, M. Style in Fiction[M]. London: Longman, 1981
Li, C./Thompson, S. The Semantic-Function of Word Order; a Case Study in Mandarin[C]. In: C. Li (ed.): Word Order and Word Order Changes. Austin:University of Texas Press, 1975: 163-195
Li, C./Thompson, S. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language[C]. In: C. Li (ed.): Subject and Topic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976: 457-489
Li, C./Thompson, S. An Exploration of Mandarin Chinese[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981
Link, J./Link-Heer, U. Diskurs/Interdiskurs und Literaturanalyse[J], LiLi 77, 1990:88-99
Martin, J.R. English Text - System and Structure[M]. Philadelphin/Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992
Martin, J.R./Matthiessen, C.M.I.M./Painter, C. Working with Functional Grammar[M]. London: Arnold, 1997
Martin. J.R./Rose, D. Working with Discourse. Meaning beyond the clause[M].London: Continuum, 2003
Matalene, C. Contrastive rhetoric: an American writing teacher in China[J]. College English, 47(8), 1985: 789-808
Mihm, A. Erzahlen in Japan und Deutschland. Aspekte einer interkulturellen Narrativik[J]. In: IVG. Band 5, 1990: 303-311.
Mihm, A. Zur Exposition deutscher und japanischer AUtagserzahlungen. Vortrag auf der Tagung der Gesellschaft fur deutsche Sprache[R]. Bremen, 1992
Minsky, M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge"[C]. In: D. Metzing (Hg.):Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, Berlin, 1980: 1-25.
Mohan, B.A./Lo, W.A-Y. Academic Writing and Chinese Students: Transfer and Developmental Factors[J]. TESOL Quarterly 19, No. 3, 1985: 515-534
Oksaar, E. Problematik im interkulturellen Verstehen[C]. In: Miiller, B.D.(Hg.):Interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation. Munchen, 1991: 13-27
Oomen, U. Linguistische Grundlagen poetischer Texte[M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer,1973
Pasierbsky, F./Rezat, S.Uberreden oder Uberzeugen? Sprachlichen Strategien auf die Schliche kommen[M]. Stauffenburg, 2006
Porksen, U. Plastikworter. Die Sprache einer internationalen Diktatur[M]. Stuttgart,1988
Purves, A.C. Writing Across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric[M]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988
Purves, A.C. / Hawisher, G. Writers, Judges and Text Models[C]. In: Beach,R./Hynds, S. Developing Discourse Practices in Adolescence and Adulthood.Norwood,NJ:Ablex, 1990: 183-199
Pusch, L. F.,, Alle Menschen werden Schwestern"-Feministische Sprachkritik[M]. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1990
R(o|¨)mer, R. Die Sprache der Anzeigenwerbung[M]. 6. Auflage. D(u|¨)sseldorf: Schwann, 1980
Rumelhart, D. Notes on a Schema for stories[C]. In: Bobrow, D./Collins, A.(Hg.): Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York, 1975: 211-236
Rumelhart, O./Ortony, A. The presentation of knowledge in memory[C]. In: Anderson, S./Montague(Hg.): Schooling and the Acquistition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, 1977: 99-135.
Schank, R. The Structure of Episodes in Memory[C]. In: Bobrow, D./Collins, A. (Hg.): Representation and Understanding. New York, 1975: 211-236.
Schiewe, J. Die Macht der Sprache. Eine Geschichte der Sprachkritik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart[M]. M(u|¨)nchen: Beck, 1998.
Schoenthal, G. Sprache, Geschlecht und Macht. Zum Diskussionsstand feministischer Thesen in der Linguistik[J]. In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 39, Heft 3, 1992: 5-12
Scollon, R./Scollon, S. W. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995
Scollon，R．／Scollon，S，W．／Kirkpatrick，A．《汉英篇章对比研究》[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000
Searle, J. R. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1969
Seidel, H./Temmen, R. Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre[M]. Bad Homburg vor der H(o|¨)he. Max Gehlen, 1998
Sommerfeldt,K. -E. /Starke, G. Einf(u|¨)hrung in die Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache[M]. T(u|¨)bingen: Niemeyer, 1998
Sowinski, B. Stilistik-Stiltheorien und Stilanalysen[M]. Metzler, 1999
Sternberger, D./Storz, G./Suskind, W.E. Aus dem Worterbuch des Unmenschen.Neue erweiterte Ausgabe mit Zeugnissen des Streites uber die Sprachkritik[M].Frankfurt a.M., 1986
Stubbs, M.W. Whorf s childrenxritical comments on critical discourse analysis[C].In: A.Ryan&A.Wray.Evolving Models of Language. British Studies in Applied Linguistics 12.ClevedomBAAL/Multilingual Matters, 1998
Swales, J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings[M].Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990
Swales, J.M./Rogers, P.S. Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: the Mission Statement[J]. In: Discourse & Society, 1995(6): 223-242
Tannen, D. What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence for underlying Expectations[C]. In:R.Freedle, New Directions in Discourse Processing. Norwood, 1979: 137-181.
Tannen, D. A Comperative Analysis of Oral Narrative Strategies: Athenian Greek and American English[M]. In: Chafe, W. (Hg.): The Pear Stories. Cognitive, Cultural,and Linguistik Aspects of Narrative Prodution. New Jersey, 1980
Tannen, D. Repetition in Conversation: Toward a Poetics of Talk[J]. In: Language 63(3), 1987: 574-605.
Taylor, G., T. Chen Linguistic, cultural and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis[J]. Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 1991: 319-336
Thierse, W. Sprich, damit ich dich sehe. Beobachtungen zum Verhaltnis von Sprache und Politik in der DDR-Vergangenheit[C]. In:Born, J./Stickel, G.(Hgg.):Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa. Berlin, New York, 1993: 144-126
Thompson, G. Introducing functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold./Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1996/2000
Ting-Toomey, S./Korzenny, F. Cross-cultural Interpersonal Communication[M].Newbury Park, London, New Delhi, 1991
Todorov, T. Die strukturelle Analyse der Erzahlung[C]. In. Ihwe (Hg.) Linguistik und Literatur, Band III, 1971/72: 265-275.
Todorov, T. Die Eroberung Amerikas. Das Problem des Anderen[M]. Frankfurt,1985
Weisgerber, L. Von den Kr(?)ften der deutschen Sprache[M]. Dusseldorf: Schwann,1949/1950
Weisgerber, L. Der Mensch im Akkuativ[J]. In: Wirkendes Wort, 1957/1958
Werlen, I. Sprachliche Relativit(?)t: Eine problemorientierte Einf(?)hrung[M]. T(?)bingen:UTB, 2002
Whorf, B. L. Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of B. L. Whorf[M].Ed. By J. B. Carroll. Cambridge (Mass.), 1956
Widdowson,H.G. Discourse analysis: A critical view[J]. Language and Literature,1995, 4(3): 157-172
Widdowson,H.G. Reply to Fairclaugh:Discourse and interpretation:conjectures and refutations [J]. Language and Literature, 1996, 5(1)
Widdowson,H.G. The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis[J].Applied Linguistics, 1998, 19(1)
Wierzbicka,A. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis[M]. Ann Arbor: Karoma,1985
Wierzbicka,A. Cross-cultural Pragmatics[M]. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 1991
Wodak, R./Cillia, R./Reisigl, M. /Liebhart, K./Hofstaetter, K. /Kargl, M. Zur diskursiven Konstruktion nationaler Identit(?)t. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1997
Young, L.W..L. Unravelling Chinese Inscrutability[D]. University of California,Berkeley, 1986
Young, L.W..L. Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication[M]. CUP,1994
Zhu, Yunxia. A Rhetorical Analysis of Chinese Sales Letters[J]. Text, 1997, 17(4):543-566
Zhu, Yunxia. Genre Dynamics Exhibited in the Development of Sales 'Tongzhi' (Circulars) [J]. Text, 19(2). Mouton de Gruyter, 1999: 281-306
Zhu, Yunxia. Revisiting Relevant Approaches for the Study of Language and Intercultural Communication[J]. Intercultural Communication, issue 6, 2004.http://www.immi.se/intercultural
Zhu, Yunxia. Written Communication across Cultures. A sociocognitive perspective on business genres. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005
陈建平．中国英语学习研究[M]。高等教育出版社，2005
陈静／高远．汉语是主题突出的语言吗[J]?外语与外语教学，2000(5)：11-14
陈望道．修辞学发凡[M]。上海文艺出版社，1959
丁树声等．现代汉语讲话[M]。商务印书馆，1961／2004
高名凯．汉语语法论[M]。商务印书馆，1986
高远／王庸．英汉语篇宏观结构与思维方式[M]。In：高远、李宝琨、王振亚(主编)，《外语教学：观点与方法》。北京：《大学外语》编辑部，1996
高一虹．语言文化差异的认识与超越[M]。外语教学与研究出版社，2000
顾嘉祖．跨文化交际：外国语言文学中的隐蔽文化[C]。顾嘉祖主编，南京师范大学出版社，2000
何方．关于经济全球化的几个问题[J]。世界经济，1998(08)：10-14
何自然．语用学概论[M]。湖南教育出版社，1988
胡曙中．英汉修辞比较研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社，1993
胡壮麟／朱永生／张德录．系统功能语法概论[M]。湖南教育出版社，1989
黄国文．形式是意义的体现．功能句法的特点之一[J]。外语与外语教学，1998(9)：4-7
黄国文(a)．语篇分析的理论与实践-广告语篇研究[M]。上海外语教育出版社，2001
黄国文(b)．功能语篇分析纵横谈[J]。外语与外语教学，2001(12)：1-4(19)
黄国文．作为普通语言学的系统功能语言学[J]。中国外语，2007(5)：14-19
贾玉新．跨文化交际学。上海外语教育出版社，1997
李战子．英汉语篇研究中对比话语的价值取向[J]。外语与外语教学，1998(1)：14-17
刘丹青／徐烈炯．话题的结构与功能[M]。上海外语教育出版社，1992
刘齐生．文化对语篇结构的影响-中德日常叙述比较研究[J]。现代外语，1999(4)：349-361
刘齐生．叙述中的紧张要素-中德语篇的跨文化比较分析[J]。现代外语，2000(4)：424-430
刘世生／朱瑞清．文体学概论[M]。北京大学出版社，2006
马秉义英汉篇章修辞比较。《英汉语言文化对比研究》，李瑞华主编。上海外语教育出版社，1996：452-463
钱文彩．汉德语言实用对比研究[M]。外语教学与研究出版社，2001
屈承熹．汉语篇章语法[M]。北京大学出版社，2006
王力(1955)：汉语讲话[M]。文化教育出版社
王墨希／李津．中国学生英语语篇思维模式调查[J]。《外语教学与研究》，1993(4)：59-65
王文创／张金城．德国国有企业的管理及对我国的启示[J]。《理论学刊》，2006(5)：51-52
辛斌．批评性语篇分析方法论[J]。《外国语》，2002(6)：34-41
杨德峰．汉语与文化交际[M]。北京大学出版社，1999
杨永林／门顺德．语言相对论与外语教学的跨文化比较研究[J]。《现代外语》，2004(3)：294-301
姚小平．洪堡特-人文研究和语言研究[M]。外语教学与研究出版社，1998
叶江．论经济全球化与国家的关系[J]。新华文摘，2000(7)：11-15
邢福义．文化语言学[M]。湖北教育出版社，2000
徐力生．语篇跨文化对比的问题分析[J]。浙江大学学报，2004(4)：117-122
徐力生／李广才．汉英论说文语篇的修辞模式对比[J]。浙江大学学报，2002(5)：56-64
徐明／丁素萍．语言形式选择的受制因素[J]。西安外国语学院学报，2005(6)：5-8
张斌．现代汉语语法十讲[M]。复旦大学出版社，2005
张美芳．翻译研究的功能途径[M]。上海外语教育出版社，2005
Anderson, J.R. Kognitive Psychologie[M]. Heidelberg: Spektrum, 1996
Austin, J. L. How to do things with words[M]. New York: Oxford UP, 1962
Bakthin, M.M. The Dialogic Imagination. Eds. and trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist[M]. Texas: University of Texas Press, 1981
Bauer, G. Sprache und Sprachlosigkeit im "Dritten Reich"[M].Koln, 1988
de Beaugrande, R.-A./Dressler, U.-W. Einfuhrung in die Textlinguistik[M].Tubingen, 1981
Bergmann, J. R. / Luckmann, T. Reconstructive genres of everyday communication.In U. Quasthoff (ed.): Aspects of oral communication[C]. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995
Berkenkotter, C. / Huckin, T. N. Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. In: C. Berkenkotter / Huckin (eds.):Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power[C], 1-25. Hillsadale: Lawrence Erlbaum,1995
Bhatia, V. K. Analysing genre: language use in professional settings[M]. New York:Longman Group, UK Limited, 1993
Bindenkopf,K. Politik und Sprache, 1973. In:Heringer (Hg.):Holzfeuer im holzernen Ofen. Aufsatze zur politischen Sprachkritik[C]. Tubingen, 1982
Bloor, T./Bloor, M. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach[M].London: Edward Arnold/Beijing : Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1995/2001
Blum-Kulka/House, J./Kasper, G. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies[C] .Norwood, 1989
Bottger, C. Genre-mixing in business communication. In: Juliane, H. (ed.):Multilingual Communication[C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 2004
Brecht, B. Gesamelte Werke[M]. Bd. 9, Werkausgabe edition suhrkamp. Frankfurt,1967
Brinker, K. Linguistische Textanalyse: eine Einf(u|¨)hrung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden[M]. 5. durchges. Und erg. Aufl. Berlin: Erichi Schmidt, 2001
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987
Buhlmann, R./Fearms. A./Leimbaeher, E. Wirtschaftsdeutsch von A-Z. Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch[M]. Langenscheidt, 1999
Buscha, J./Freudenberg-Findeisen, R./Forstreuter, E./Koch, H./Kuntzsch, L. Grammatik in Feldern[M]. Hueber, 2006
B(u|¨)chle, K. "Briefkontakte"-Aspekte eines interkulturellen & interlingualen Textvergleichs[M]. In: Kultur und Sprache, Berliner Beitr(a|¨)ge zu Deutsch als Fremdsprachel, 1991: 19-30
Campell, C. P. Rhetorical ethos: A Bridge between High-Context and Low-Context Cultures? In: S. Niemeier, C. P. Cambell and R. Dirven(eds.): The Cultural Context in Business Communication[C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988: 31-47.
Carrell, P. L./Eisterhold, J. C. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 18, 1983: 553-573
Chao, Y. R. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese[M]. Calif.: University of California Press, 1968
Clyne, M. Zu kulturellen Unterschieden in der Produktion und Wahrnehmung englischer und deutscher wissenschaftlicher Texte[J]. Info DaF 18, 1991: 457-474.
Clyne, M. Pragmatik, Textstruktur und kulturelle Werte. Eine interkulturelle Perspektive[C]. In: Schr(o|¨)der, Hartmut(Hg.): Fachtextpragmatik(=Forum f(u|¨)r Fachsprachenforschung; 19). T(u|¨)bingen: Narr, 1993: 3-18.
Clyne, M./Hoeks, J./Kreutz, H-J. Cross-cultural responses to academic discourse patterns[J]. In: Folia Linguistica 22, 1988: 457-474.
Coe，R．M．／胡曙中．英汉对比修辞研究初探[J]．《外国语》，第2期，1989：40-47
Connor, U. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of second-language Writing[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996
Cramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching[M]. Oxford University Press, 1993
van Dijk, T. Textwissenschaft. Eine interdisziplinare Einfuhrung[M]. Tubingen, 1980
van Dijk, T. Discourse semantics and ideology[J]. In: Discourse & Society, 1995 (4):243-289
Duden.Deutsches Universal worterbuch[M]. Mannheim/Wien/Zurich: Dudenverlag,2000
Duwendag, D. Golbalisierung im Kreuzfeuer der Kritik[M]. Baden-Baden: Nomos,2006
Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic-Functional Linguistic[M]. London: Pinter,1994
Eggins, S./Martin, J. R. Genres and Registers of Discourse[C]. In: van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage, 1997
Ehlich, K. Interkulturelle Kommunikation[C]. In: Goebl, Hans/Nelde, Peter/Stary,Zdenek/Wolck, Wolfgang (Hgg.): Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenossischer Forschung. 1. Halbband (= HSK; 12.1). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1996: 920-931
Fairclough, N. Language and Power[M]. London: Longman, 1989/2001
Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change[M]. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992
Fairclough, N. Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse:the universities[J]. In: Discourse and Society 4, 1993: 133-168
Fairclough, N. Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research[M]. London and New Jork: Routledge, 2003
Fix, Ulla (Hrsg.). Ritualitat in der Kommunikation der DDR. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang,1998
Folman/Conor. Intercultural Rhetorical Differences in Composing a Research Papeer.International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference[J].Vancouver, British Columbia, 1992
Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish[M]. London: Tavistock, 1977
Fowler, R. Critical Linguistics[C]. In: Malmkjar, K. (ed.), The Linguistics Encycolopedia. London: Routledge, 1991
Freedman, A. Beyond the text: towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1999, 33,4: 764-767.
Fromm, E. Haben oder Sein. Die seelischen Grundlagen einer neuen Gesellschaft[J].GA-Gesamtausgabe, Bd. 2. Deutsche Verlags-Anstadt, 1999
Gartner, D. Vom Sekretardeutsch zur Kommerzsprache-Sprachmanipulation gestern und heute[C]. In: Fix, U. Ritualitat in der Kommunikation der DDR. Frankfurt, 1998
Gipper, H. Sprachliches Realitatsprinzip[M]. Fischer Verlag, 1972
Glinz, H. Deutsche Syntax[M]. Dritte, durch einen Nachtrag erweiterte Auflage.Stuttgart: Metzler, 1970
Gnutzmann, C. Abstracs und ,Zusammenfassungen im deutsch-englischen Vergleich:Das Passiv als interkulturelles und teiltextdifferenzierendes Signal[M]. In: Muller,
Bernd-Dietrich (Hg): Interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation. Munchen: Iudicium,1991: 363-378
Goffman, E. Wir alle spielen Theater [M]. Munchen: Piper, 1973
Gorman, T. P./Purves, A.C./Degenhart. R. E. The IEA Study of Written Composition 1: The International Writing Tasks and Scoring Scales[M]. New York,Pergamon Press, 1988
Granet, M. Das chnesiche Denken[M]. Frankfurt, 1985
Grice, H.P. Studies in the way of words[M]. Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1989
Gulich, E. Konventionelle Muster und kommunikative Funktionen von Alltagserzahlungen[C]. In: Ehiich, K. (Hg.): Erzahlen im Alltag. Frankfurt, 1980
Gulich, E/Raible, W. Linguistische Textmodelle[M]. Munchen, 1977
Gumperz, J.J. Communicative Competence Revisisted[C]. In: D. Schiffrin (ed.):Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Cambridge, 1984:278-289
Gumperz, J.J./Jupp, T.C/Roberts, C. Grosstalk: A Study of Cross-Cultural Communication[M]. Southall, 1979
Gunthner, S. Interkulturelle Aspekte von Schreibstilen: Zur Verwendung von Sprichwortern und Routineformeln in Deutschaufsatzen chinesischer Dertschlerner/innen[C].. In: M. Lieber, J, Posser (Hg.): Texte Schreiben im Germanistik- Studium. Munchen: ludicium, 1988: 145-159.
Gunthner, S. Diskursstrategien in der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Analyse deutsch-chinesischer Gesprache[M]. Tubingen, 1993
Gunthner, S./Rothenhausler, R. Interethnische Kommunikation zwischen Deutschen und Chinesen[J]. In: Info DaF. 1986: 304-309
Hall, E. T. Beyond culture[M]. Garden City. New Your: Anchor, 1976:
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2~(nd) ed. London: Edward Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1994/2000
Halliday, M. A. K. Language and the Reshaping of Human Experience[C]. In: Bessie Dendrinos (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth international Symposium on Historical Discourse Analysis, Athens: University off Athens Press, 1995
Halliday, M.A. K./ Hasan, R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman & Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1976/2001
Halliday, M. A. K. /Hasan, R. Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective[M]. Oxford University Press, 1989
Halliday, M.A.K. / Martin, J.R. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power[M].London: Falmer, 1993
Halliday, M.A.K. / Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition[M]. London: Cassell, 1999
Harweg,R. Pronomina und Textkonstitution[M]. Miinchen: Wilhelm Fink, 1979
Hatim, B. Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics[M]. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1997
Heinemann, W./Viehweger,D. Textlinguistik. Eine Einfuhrung[M]. Tubingen, 1991
HeiBenbuttel, H. Das Textbuch[J]. Neuwied, Berlin, 1970
Hinds, J. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typoIogy[C]. In: U. Connor / R.B. Kaplan (eds.). Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley, 1987
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. H. The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth[J]. Organisational Dynamics, 16, 4, 1988: 4-21
Holz, H. H. Chinas Problem der Kultur-Komparatistik[J]. LiLi 61, 1986: 65-84.
House, J. Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited[M]. T(u|¨)bingen: Gunter Narr, 1997
House, J./Kasper, G. Politeness markers in English and German[C]. In: Coulmas, F. (Hrsg.): Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague, Paris, New York, 1981: 157-186.
Humboldt, W.v.(U|¨)ber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluβ auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts[M]. Posthum, 1836.
中文版：姚小平译，《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》，商务印书馆，1999
Hupfer, J. Diskurs und Politik. Frankfurt[M]. Opladen, 1991
J(a|¨)ger, S. Einf(u|¨)hrung in die kritische Diskursanalyse[M]. Duisburg: Diss, 1993
Janich, N. Werbesprache. Ein Arbeitsbuch[M]. 3. Auflage, T(u|¨)bingen: Gunter Narr, 2003
Kaplan, R. B. Cultur Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education[C]. In: Language Learning 16, 1966: 1-20.
Kaplan, R.B. Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of composition[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1(4), 1967: 10-16.
Kaplan, R.B. Contrastive rhetoric: Some implications for the writing process[C]. In: A. Freedman u. a.(Hg.): Learning to write: First language & second language. London, 1983: 136-161.
Kaplan, R.B. Culture Thought Patterns Revisited[C]. In: U. Connor und R. B. Kaplan (Hg.): Writing Across Languages: Analysis of 12 Text. Reading, Mass, 1987: 9-21
Kaplan, R.B. Contrastive rhetoric and discourse analysis: Who writes what to whom? When? In what circumstances?[C] In: Sarangi, S., / Coulthard, M.(eds.). Discourse and Social Life. New York: Longman, 2000: 82-101
Kirkpatrick, A. Information sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request[J].Anthropological Linguistics, 33(2), 1991:183-203
Kirkpatrick, A. Information sequencingg in Mandarin in Modern Standard Chinese[D]. Dissertation, Australian National University, 1993
Klemperer, V. LTI[M]. Leipzig: Reclame, 10. Auflage, 1847/1990
Kramsch, C. Context and Culture in Language Teaching[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press/上海外语教育出版社, 1993/1999
Kopf, D. W. Intercultural Encounters[M]. Colorado: Morton Publishing Company,1991
Kress,G./ Hodge,R. Language as Ideology[M] .London: Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979
Korn, K. Sprache in der verwalteten Welt[M]. M(?)nchen: dtv 79, 1962
Krause,J. Selbstdarstellung der Unternehmen im Internet [M]. D(?)sseldorf:Schmidtlein, 2003
Kress, G./Hodge, R. Language as Ideology[M]. London:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979
Kress, G./Leite-Garcia, R./van Leeuwen, T. Dicourse Semiotics[C]. In: v. Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Condon: Academic Press, 1985
Leech, G. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry[M].London: Longman, 1969
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. New York: Longman, 1983
Leech, G. & Short, M. Style in Fiction[M]. London: Longman, 1981
Li, C./Thompson, S. The Semantic-Function of Word Order; a Case Study in Mandarin[C]. In: C. Li (ed.): Word Order and Word Order Changes. Austin:University of Texas Press, 1975: 163-195
Li, C./Thompson, S. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language[C]. In: C. Li (ed.): Subject and Topic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976: 457-489
Li, C./Thompson, S. An Exploration of Mandarin Chinese[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981
Link, J./Link-Heer, U. Diskurs/Interdiskurs und Literaturanalyse[J], LiLi 77, 1990:88-99
Martin, J.R. English Text - System and Structure[M]. Philadelphin/Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992
Martin, J.R./Matthiessen, C.M.I.M./Painter, C. Working with Functional Grammar[M]. London: Arnold, 1997
Martin. J.R./Rose, D. Working with Discourse. Meaning beyond the clause[M].London: Continuum, 2003
Matalene, C. Contrastive rhetoric: an American writing teacher in China[J]. College English, 47(8), 1985: 789-808
Mihm, A. Erzahlen in Japan und Deutschland. Aspekte einer interkulturellen Narrativik[J]. In: IVG. Band 5, 1990: 303-311.
Mihm, A. Zur Exposition deutscher und japanischer AUtagserzahlungen. Vortrag auf der Tagung der Gesellschaft fur deutsche Sprache[R]. Bremen, 1992
Minsky, M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge"[C]. In: D. Metzing (Hg.):Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, Berlin, 1980: 1-25.
Mohan, B.A./Lo, W.A-Y. Academic Writing and Chinese Students: Transfer and Developmental Factors[J]. TESOL Quarterly 19, No. 3, 1985: 515-534
Oksaar, E. Problematik im interkulturellen Verstehen[C]. In: Miiller, B.D.(Hg.):Interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation. Munchen, 1991: 13-27
Oomen, U. Linguistische Grundlagen poetischer Texte[M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer,1973
Pasierbsky, F./Rezat, S.Uberreden oder Uberzeugen? Sprachlichen Strategien auf die Schliche kommen[M]. Stauffenburg, 2006
Porksen, U. Plastikworter. Die Sprache einer internationalen Diktatur[M]. Stuttgart,1988
Purves, A.C. Writing Across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric[M]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988
Purves, A.C. / Hawisher, G. Writers, Judges and Text Models[C]. In: Beach,R./Hynds, S. Developing Discourse Practices in Adolescence and Adulthood.Norwood,NJ:Ablex, 1990: 183-199
Pusch, L. F.,, Alle Menschen werden Schwestern"-Feministische Sprachkritik[M]. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1990
R(o|¨)mer, R. Die Sprache der Anzeigenwerbung[M]. 6. Auflage. D(u|¨)sseldorf: Schwann, 1980
Rumelhart, D. Notes on a Schema for stories[C]. In: Bobrow, D./Collins, A.(Hg.): Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York, 1975: 211-236
Rumelhart, O./Ortony, A. The presentation of knowledge in memory[C]. In: Anderson, S./Montague(Hg.): Schooling and the Acquistition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, 1977: 99-135.
Schank, R. The Structure of Episodes in Memory[C]. In: Bobrow, D./Collins, A. (Hg.): Representation and Understanding. New York, 1975: 211-236.
Schiewe, J. Die Macht der Sprache. Eine Geschichte der Sprachkritik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart[M]. M(u|¨)nchen: Beck, 1998.
Schoenthal, G. Sprache, Geschlecht und Macht. Zum Diskussionsstand feministischer Thesen in der Linguistik[J]. In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 39, Heft 3, 1992: 5-12
Scollon, R./Scollon, S. W. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995
Scollon，R．／Scollon，S，W．／Kirkpatrick，A．《汉英篇章对比研究》[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000
Searle, J. R. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1969
Seidel, H./Temmen, R. Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre[M]. Bad Homburg vor der H(o|¨)he. Max Gehlen, 1998
Sommerfeldt,K. -E. /Starke, G. Einf(u|¨)hrung in die Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache[M]. T(u|¨)bingen: Niemeyer, 1998
Sowinski, B. Stilistik-Stiltheorien und Stilanalysen[M]. Metzler, 1999
Sternberger, D./Storz, G./Suskind, W.E. Aus dem Worterbuch des Unmenschen.Neue erweiterte Ausgabe mit Zeugnissen des Streites uber die Sprachkritik[M].Frankfurt a.M., 1986
Stubbs, M.W. Whorf s childrenxritical comments on critical discourse analysis[C].In: A.Ryan&A.Wray.Evolving Models of Language. British Studies in Applied Linguistics 12.ClevedomBAAL/Multilingual Matters, 1998
Swales, J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings[M].Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990
Swales, J.M./Rogers, P.S. Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: the Mission Statement[J]. In: Discourse & Society, 1995(6): 223-242
Tannen, D. What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence for underlying Expectations[C]. In:R.Freedle, New Directions in Discourse Processing. Norwood, 1979: 137-181.
Tannen, D. A Comperative Analysis of Oral Narrative Strategies: Athenian Greek and American English[M]. In: Chafe, W. (Hg.): The Pear Stories. Cognitive, Cultural,and Linguistik Aspects of Narrative Prodution. New Jersey, 1980
Tannen, D. Repetition in Conversation: Toward a Poetics of Talk[J]. In: Language 63(3), 1987: 574-605.
Taylor, G., T. Chen Linguistic, cultural and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis[J]. Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 1991: 319-336
Thierse, W. Sprich, damit ich dich sehe. Beobachtungen zum Verhaltnis von Sprache und Politik in der DDR-Vergangenheit[C]. In:Born, J./Stickel, G.(Hgg.):Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa. Berlin, New York, 1993: 144-126
Thompson, G. Introducing functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold./Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1996/2000
Ting-Toomey, S./Korzenny, F. Cross-cultural Interpersonal Communication[M].Newbury Park, London, New Delhi, 1991
Todorov, T. Die strukturelle Analyse der Erzahlung[C]. In. Ihwe (Hg.) Linguistik und Literatur, Band III, 1971/72: 265-275.
Todorov, T. Die Eroberung Amerikas. Das Problem des Anderen[M]. Frankfurt,1985
Weisgerber, L. Von den Kr(?)ften der deutschen Sprache[M]. Dusseldorf: Schwann,1949/1950
Weisgerber, L. Der Mensch im Akkuativ[J]. In: Wirkendes Wort, 1957/1958
Werlen, I. Sprachliche Relativit(?)t: Eine problemorientierte Einf(?)hrung[M]. T(?)bingen:UTB, 2002
Whorf, B. L. Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of B. L. Whorf[M].Ed. By J. B. Carroll. Cambridge (Mass.), 1956
Widdowson,H.G. Discourse analysis: A critical view[J]. Language and Literature,1995, 4(3): 157-172
Widdowson,H.G. Reply to Fairclaugh:Discourse and interpretation:conjectures and refutations [J]. Language and Literature, 1996, 5(1)
Widdowson,H.G. The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis[J].Applied Linguistics, 1998, 19(1)
Wierzbicka,A. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis[M]. Ann Arbor: Karoma,1985
Wierzbicka,A. Cross-cultural Pragmatics[M]. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 1991
Wodak, R./Cillia, R./Reisigl, M. /Liebhart, K./Hofstaetter, K. /Kargl, M. Zur diskursiven Konstruktion nationaler Identit(?)t. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1997
Young, L.W..L. Unravelling Chinese Inscrutability[D]. University of California,Berkeley, 1986
Young, L.W..L. Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication[M]. CUP,1994
Zhu, Yunxia. A Rhetorical Analysis of Chinese Sales Letters[J]. Text, 1997, 17(4):543-566
Zhu, Yunxia. Genre Dynamics Exhibited in the Development of Sales 'Tongzhi' (Circulars) [J]. Text, 19(2). Mouton de Gruyter, 1999: 281-306
Zhu, Yunxia. Revisiting Relevant Approaches for the Study of Language and Intercultural Communication[J]. Intercultural Communication, issue 6, 2004.http://www.immi.se/intercultural
Zhu, Yunxia. Written Communication across Cultures. A sociocognitive perspective on business genres. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005
陈建平．中国英语学习研究[M]。高等教育出版社，2005
陈静／高远．汉语是主题突出的语言吗[J]?外语与外语教学，2000(5)：11-14
陈望道．修辞学发凡[M]。上海文艺出版社，1959
丁树声等．现代汉语讲话[M]。商务印书馆，1961／2004
高名凯．汉语语法论[M]。商务印书馆，1986
高远／王庸．英汉语篇宏观结构与思维方式[M]。In：高远、李宝琨、王振亚(主编)，《外语教学：观点与方法》。北京：《大学外语》编辑部，1996
高一虹．语言文化差异的认识与超越[M]。外语教学与研究出版社，2000
顾嘉祖．跨文化交际：外国语言文学中的隐蔽文化[C]。顾嘉祖主编，南京师范大学出版社，2000
何方．关于经济全球化的几个问题[J]。世界经济，1998(08)：10-14
何自然．语用学概论[M]。湖南教育出版社，1988
胡曙中．英汉修辞比较研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社，1993
胡壮麟／朱永生／张德录．系统功能语法概论[M]。湖南教育出版社，1989
黄国文．形式是意义的体现．功能句法的特点之一[J]。外语与外语教学，1998(9)：4-7
黄国文(a)．语篇分析的理论与实践-广告语篇研究[M]。上海外语教育出版社，2001
黄国文(b)．功能语篇分析纵横谈[J]。外语与外语教学，2001(12)：1-4(19)
黄国文．作为普通语言学的系统功能语言学[J]。中国外语，2007(5)：14-19
贾玉新．跨文化交际学。上海外语教育出版社，1997
李战子．英汉语篇研究中对比话语的价值取向[J]。外语与外语教学，1998(1)：14-17
刘丹青／徐烈炯．话题的结构与功能[M]。上海外语教育出版社，1992
刘齐生．文化对语篇结构的影响-中德日常叙述比较研究[J]。现代外语，1999(4)：349-361
刘齐生．叙述中的紧张要素-中德语篇的跨文化比较分析[J]。现代外语，2000(4)：424-430
刘世生／朱瑞清．文体学概论[M]。北京大学出版社，2006
马秉义英汉篇章修辞比较。《英汉语言文化对比研究》，李瑞华主编。上海外语教育出版社，1996：452-463
钱文彩．汉德语言实用对比研究[M]。外语教学与研究出版社，2001
屈承熹．汉语篇章语法[M]。北京大学出版社，2006
王力(1955)：汉语讲话[M]。文化教育出版社
王墨希／李津．中国学生英语语篇思维模式调查[J]。《外语教学与研究》，1993(4)：59-65
王文创／张金城．德国国有企业的管理及对我国的启示[J]。《理论学刊》，2006(5)：51-52
辛斌．批评性语篇分析方法论[J]。《外国语》，2002(6)：34-41
杨德峰．汉语与文化交际[M]。北京大学出版社，1999
杨永林／门顺德．语言相对论与外语教学的跨文化比较研究[J]。《现代外语》，2004(3)：294-301
姚小平．洪堡特-人文研究和语言研究[M]。外语教学与研究出版社，1998
叶江．论经济全球化与国家的关系[J]。新华文摘，2000(7)：11-15
邢福义．文化语言学[M]。湖北教育出版社，2000
徐力生．语篇跨文化对比的问题分析[J]。浙江大学学报，2004(4)：117-122
徐力生／李广才．汉英论说文语篇的修辞模式对比[J]。浙江大学学报，2002(5)：56-64
徐明／丁素萍．语言形式选择的受制因素[J]。西安外国语学院学报，2005(6)：5-8
张斌．现代汉语语法十讲[M]。复旦大学出版社，2005
张美芳．翻译研究的功能途径[M]。上海外语教育出版社，2005