话题引入与篇章回指的关系
|
摘要
本论文旨在对英语新闻语篇中具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指的关系做一较为全面的描述与研究。本文拟探讨以下几个问题:在英语新闻语篇中,1)哪类名词词组可被用来引入具体实体话题,及由各类名词词组引入的具体实体话题的延续值是多少?2)哪种句法位置可被典型地用来引入具体实体话题及不同句法位置上的具体实体话题的主题延续值是多少?3)具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指的关系如何?
本文在连续3个星期内分别从美国三个主要报纸—《纽约时报》,《洛杉基时报》及《芝加哥论坛报》中选了60篇有关美国2008年总统选举的新闻报道,并对其进行分析研究。为了分析英语新闻语篇中具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指的关系,本研究将60篇新闻报道中每一个新引入的具体实体话题都标示出来,并对每一个具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段进行分类及标示,通过分析由不同语言手段所引入的具体实体话题在下文被回指的次数来探讨具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指确认的关系。
本文应用阿里尔(1990)的可及性理论及Givón (1990)的主题性理论,分析所收集的英语新闻语篇中具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指的关系,并对分析结果做出定量和定性研究。
研究表明,在英语新闻语篇中,专有名词词组被典型地用来引入具体实体话题,而主语位置则是各类名词词组引入具体实体话题时出现最频繁的句法位置。
定量分析表明:在英语新闻语篇中,出现在句子主语位置上的专有名词词组被典型的用来引入最重要的具体实体话题,这从由各类名词词组引入的具体实体话题在下文被回指的次数便可看出。
定性研究表明:在英语新闻语篇中,被激活程度最高的具体实体话题是那些出现在句子主语位置,由专有名词词组所引入的话题,充当句子表语的专有名词词组引入的具体实体话题被激活的程度次之;充当句子间接宾语的有定名词短语引入的具体实体话题被激活的程度位居第三。在可及性理论及主题理论框架内,被激活程度越高,提取时则越容易。由于本研究中被激活程度最高的具体实体话题是那些出现在句子主语位置上,由专有名词词组引入的话题,所以在英语新闻语篇中,出现在主语位置上,由专有名词词组所引入的具体实体话题是英语新闻语篇中相关回指语最为可及的回指对象。
本研究结果丰富了语言提示与语篇回指关系的理论研究,有助于语言研究者和英语教师了解英语新闻语篇中语言提示对篇章回指理解的影响,对英语新闻语篇中回指的理解及其语篇本身的理解具有一定的启示意义。
The present study intends to provide a relatively comprehensive account for the relationship between concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution in English news reports. It aims to answer the following three questions:1) What kind of noun-phrase is typically employed in introducing concrete entity topics into English news reports and what is the average topic persistence of topics introduced by different noun-phrases? 2) What is the typical syntactic position that noun-phrase takes in introducing concrete entity topics into English news reports and what is the average topic persistence of topics introduced by different noun-phrases in different syntactic positions? 3) What is the relation between topic persistence and discourse anaphora resolution?
Sixty English news reports on 2008 American presidential campaign are selected successively within 3 weeks from three American nationwide authoritative newspapers: The New York Times, Los Angels Times and Chicago Tribune. To analyze the relationship between concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution, every newly introduced concrete entity topic is identified and coded. Meanwhile, means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction are identified and coded. Then the relationship between linguistic cues and discourse anaphora interpretation is examined by analyzing the overall frequency as well as the topic persistence of concrete entity topics of noun-phrases in different syntactic positions.
Ariel’s (1990) Accessibility Theory and Givón’s (1990) Topicality Theory are adopted to explore the correlation between means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora interpretation. Within a cognitive and functional framework, the overall frequency and the topic persistence of different concrete entity topics introduced by different noun-phrases in different sentence positions are analyzed.
The results of the present research suggest that the most typical noun-phrase used in concrete entity topic-introduction in English journalistic discourse is proper name and the typical syntactic position noun-phrase takes is subject position. Taking noun-phrases and syntactic positions together into consideration, the overall frequency and the topic persistence of concrete entity topic introduced by proper name in subject position rank first compared with other noun-phrases in other syntactic positions. The quantitative analysis indicates that in English news reports, the most important concrete entity topics are usually introduced by proper names in subject position and they are very likely to be maintained in the following discourse.
The qualitative analysis of the relationship between means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution shows that, with regard to the activation degree of the concrete entity topics, those topics introduced by proper names in subject position come first, those introduced by proper names in predicative position occupy the second place, while those introduced by definite noun-phrases in indirect object position rank the third place.
Within the framework of Accessibility Theory and Topicality Theory, the higher the degree of the topic activation is, the easier it is to be retrieved, and the easier it is to be retrieved, the more accessible it is for the reader. The most striking feature of the relation between concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution is that the most accessible concrete entity topics in English news reports are those introduced by proper names in subject position.
This study provides supporting evidence for the previous studies on the effect of linguistic cues on discourse anaphora interpretation. It can help promote the understanding of the relation between linguistic cues (means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction) and discourse anaphora resolution in English news reports and give insights into the learning and teaching of English news reports.
本文在连续3个星期内分别从美国三个主要报纸—《纽约时报》,《洛杉基时报》及《芝加哥论坛报》中选了60篇有关美国2008年总统选举的新闻报道,并对其进行分析研究。为了分析英语新闻语篇中具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指的关系,本研究将60篇新闻报道中每一个新引入的具体实体话题都标示出来,并对每一个具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段进行分类及标示,通过分析由不同语言手段所引入的具体实体话题在下文被回指的次数来探讨具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指确认的关系。
本文应用阿里尔(1990)的可及性理论及Givón (1990)的主题性理论,分析所收集的英语新闻语篇中具体实体话题引入时所采用的语言手段与篇章回指的关系,并对分析结果做出定量和定性研究。
研究表明,在英语新闻语篇中,专有名词词组被典型地用来引入具体实体话题,而主语位置则是各类名词词组引入具体实体话题时出现最频繁的句法位置。
定量分析表明:在英语新闻语篇中,出现在句子主语位置上的专有名词词组被典型的用来引入最重要的具体实体话题,这从由各类名词词组引入的具体实体话题在下文被回指的次数便可看出。
定性研究表明:在英语新闻语篇中,被激活程度最高的具体实体话题是那些出现在句子主语位置,由专有名词词组所引入的话题,充当句子表语的专有名词词组引入的具体实体话题被激活的程度次之;充当句子间接宾语的有定名词短语引入的具体实体话题被激活的程度位居第三。在可及性理论及主题理论框架内,被激活程度越高,提取时则越容易。由于本研究中被激活程度最高的具体实体话题是那些出现在句子主语位置上,由专有名词词组引入的话题,所以在英语新闻语篇中,出现在主语位置上,由专有名词词组所引入的具体实体话题是英语新闻语篇中相关回指语最为可及的回指对象。
本研究结果丰富了语言提示与语篇回指关系的理论研究,有助于语言研究者和英语教师了解英语新闻语篇中语言提示对篇章回指理解的影响,对英语新闻语篇中回指的理解及其语篇本身的理解具有一定的启示意义。
The present study intends to provide a relatively comprehensive account for the relationship between concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution in English news reports. It aims to answer the following three questions:1) What kind of noun-phrase is typically employed in introducing concrete entity topics into English news reports and what is the average topic persistence of topics introduced by different noun-phrases? 2) What is the typical syntactic position that noun-phrase takes in introducing concrete entity topics into English news reports and what is the average topic persistence of topics introduced by different noun-phrases in different syntactic positions? 3) What is the relation between topic persistence and discourse anaphora resolution?
Sixty English news reports on 2008 American presidential campaign are selected successively within 3 weeks from three American nationwide authoritative newspapers: The New York Times, Los Angels Times and Chicago Tribune. To analyze the relationship between concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution, every newly introduced concrete entity topic is identified and coded. Meanwhile, means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction are identified and coded. Then the relationship between linguistic cues and discourse anaphora interpretation is examined by analyzing the overall frequency as well as the topic persistence of concrete entity topics of noun-phrases in different syntactic positions.
Ariel’s (1990) Accessibility Theory and Givón’s (1990) Topicality Theory are adopted to explore the correlation between means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora interpretation. Within a cognitive and functional framework, the overall frequency and the topic persistence of different concrete entity topics introduced by different noun-phrases in different sentence positions are analyzed.
The results of the present research suggest that the most typical noun-phrase used in concrete entity topic-introduction in English journalistic discourse is proper name and the typical syntactic position noun-phrase takes is subject position. Taking noun-phrases and syntactic positions together into consideration, the overall frequency and the topic persistence of concrete entity topic introduced by proper name in subject position rank first compared with other noun-phrases in other syntactic positions. The quantitative analysis indicates that in English news reports, the most important concrete entity topics are usually introduced by proper names in subject position and they are very likely to be maintained in the following discourse.
The qualitative analysis of the relationship between means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution shows that, with regard to the activation degree of the concrete entity topics, those topics introduced by proper names in subject position come first, those introduced by proper names in predicative position occupy the second place, while those introduced by definite noun-phrases in indirect object position rank the third place.
Within the framework of Accessibility Theory and Topicality Theory, the higher the degree of the topic activation is, the easier it is to be retrieved, and the easier it is to be retrieved, the more accessible it is for the reader. The most striking feature of the relation between concrete entity topic-introduction and discourse anaphora resolution is that the most accessible concrete entity topics in English news reports are those introduced by proper names in subject position.
This study provides supporting evidence for the previous studies on the effect of linguistic cues on discourse anaphora interpretation. It can help promote the understanding of the relation between linguistic cues (means employed in concrete entity topic-introduction) and discourse anaphora resolution in English news reports and give insights into the learning and teaching of English news reports.
引文
Abu-Akel, A. (2002). The psychological and social dynamics of topic performance in family dinnertime conversation. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 34, 1787-1806.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedent [M]. New York: Routledge.
Bestgen, Y , & Vonk, V. (2000). Temporal adverbials as discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 42, 74-87.
Beaver, D. (2004). The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy [J], 27, 3-56.
Borthen, K, & Haugereid, P. (2005). Representing referential properties of nominals. Research on Language and Computation [J], 3, 221-246.
Brown, G , & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, D. W. ( 2000). Psychology of language [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chan, S. W. K , & T’sou, B. (1999). Semantic inference for anaphora resolution : toward a framework in machine tranlation. Machine Tranlation [J], 14, 163-190.
Cornish, F. (2008). How indexicals function in texts: discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 40, 997-1018.
Elbourne, P (2001). E-type anaphora as np-deletion. Natural Language Semantics [J], 9, 241-288.
Emmorey, K, & Falgier, B. (2004). Conceptual locations and pronomonal Reference in American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research [J], 33, 321-331.
Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 56, 357-383.
Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language [J], 66, 297–316.
Fultner, B. (2002). Inferentialism and communicative action: robust conceptions of intersubjectivity. Philosophical Studies [J], 108, 121-131.
Givón, T. ( 1990). Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language [J] , 69, 274–307.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Horne, M., Hasson, P., Bruce, G., Frid, J., and Filipsson, M. (2001). Cue words and the topic structure of spoken discourse: the case of Swedish men’but’. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 33, 1061-1081.
Huang, Yan. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics [J], 27, 301-335.
Huang, Yan. ( 2000). Discourse anaphora: four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics [J] , 32, 151-176.
Hawkins & John, A. (2006). A performance theory of order and constituency [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press and Cambridge University Press
Kennelly, S. D. (2003). The implications of quantification for the role of focus in discourse structure. Lingua [J], 113, 1055-1088.
Kennison, S. M. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 49, 335-352.
Lawlor, K. (2002). Memory, anaphora, and content preservation. Philosophical Studies [J], 109, 97-119.
Mason, I. (2006). On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 38, 359-373.
Mitkov, R. (1999). Multilingual anaphora resolution. Machine Translation [J], 14, 281-299.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2004). Topic and focus as linear notions :evidence from Italian and Russian. Lingua [J], 114, 325-344.
Radford, A. ( 2002). Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A Minimalist Approach [M]. Beijing : Peking University Press and Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R., Kendrick, H., & Kim, Y. (2005). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics [M](3rd ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sandu, G. (1997). On the theory of anaphora: dynamic predicate logic vs. game-theoretical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy [J], 20, 147-174.
Smith, S. W., Noda, H. P., Andrews, S., and Jucker, A. H. (2005). Setting the stage: how speakers prepare listeners for the introduction of referents in dialogues and monologues. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 37, 1865-1895.
Suzuki, S. (1995). The functions of topic-encoding zero-marked phrases: a study of the interaction among topic-encoding expressions in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 23, 607-626.
Takubo, Y., & Kinsui, S. (1997). Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 28, 741-758.
Tao, L., & Healy, A. F. (2005). Zero anaphora: transfer of reference tracking strategies from Chinese to English. Journal of Pycholinguistic Research [J], 34, 99-131.
Van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points: a cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora. Constraints. Language [J], 71,310-339.
Vonk, W., & Bestgen, Y. (2000). Temporal adverbials as segmentation markers in discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 42, 74-87.
Widdowson, H. G. (2000). Linguistics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Yule, G (2000). Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
陈香兰,周流溪,2007,异形回指和联想回指理解的转喻动机[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期,1-4。
贾光茂,2006,篇章回指确认中的制约因素研究[J],《西安外国语学院学报》第4期,8-10。
蒋平,2004,零形回指的句法和语篇特征的研究[D],上海外国语大学。
李晓庆,杨玉芳,2004,语篇中指代词的分布规律与心理机制[J],《心理科学进展》第1期,1-9。
刘正光,曹志希, 2007,指称意义与句法变化[J],《外国语》第2期,37-44。
齐曦,2004,英语名词回指及其语篇功能研究[J],《外语教学》第5期,48-51。
王军,2005,论语言语境对回指的限定作用[J],《外语学刊》第5期,18-21。
王军,2006,论篇章距离对回指先行语可及性的影响[J],《山东外语教学》第1期,26-29。
王军,2007,直接回指与间接回指[J],《天津外国语学院学报》第5期,1-6。
王军,2007,主题性:整体回指关系体现出的一种篇章属性[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期,6-8。
王义娜,2006,从可及性到主观性:语篇指称模式比较[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期,1-4。
翁依琴,熊学亮,2005,回指的形式语用学初探[J],《外语研究》第2期,6-9。
熊学亮,1999,《英汉前指现象对比》〔M],上海:复旦大学出版社。
熊学亮,刘东虹,2007,论证文中抽象实体的回指研究[J],《四川外语学院学报》第1期,75-79。
徐烈炯,1990,《语义学》〔M],北京:语文出版社。
许保芳,肖德法,2008,语篇回指的多维研究综述[J],《西安外国语学院学报》第1期,22-24。
许余龙,1992,《对比语言学概论》〔M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2000,英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J],《外语教学与研究》第5期,321-328。
许余龙,2005,语篇回指实证研究中的数据库建设[J],《外国语》第2期,23-29。
许余龙,贺小聃,2007,英汉语下指的篇章功能和语用分析[J],《外语教学与研究》第6期,417-423。
许余龙, 2007,话题引入与篇章回指[J],《外语教学与研究》第6期,1-5。
杨永忠,2006,联想回指分析[J],《山东外语教学》第5期,48-53。
俞洪亮,2003,语篇连贯的外部条件:语篇回指的心理表征分析[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期,13-17。
赵宏、邵志宏,2002,汉英第三人称代词语篇指称功能对比研究[J],《外语教学与研究》第3期,417-423。
张德禄,2006,语篇连贯的宏观原则研究[J],《外语与外语教学》第10期,7-13。
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedent [M]. New York: Routledge.
Bestgen, Y , & Vonk, V. (2000). Temporal adverbials as discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 42, 74-87.
Beaver, D. (2004). The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy [J], 27, 3-56.
Borthen, K, & Haugereid, P. (2005). Representing referential properties of nominals. Research on Language and Computation [J], 3, 221-246.
Brown, G , & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, D. W. ( 2000). Psychology of language [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chan, S. W. K , & T’sou, B. (1999). Semantic inference for anaphora resolution : toward a framework in machine tranlation. Machine Tranlation [J], 14, 163-190.
Cornish, F. (2008). How indexicals function in texts: discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 40, 997-1018.
Elbourne, P (2001). E-type anaphora as np-deletion. Natural Language Semantics [J], 9, 241-288.
Emmorey, K, & Falgier, B. (2004). Conceptual locations and pronomonal Reference in American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research [J], 33, 321-331.
Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 56, 357-383.
Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language [J], 66, 297–316.
Fultner, B. (2002). Inferentialism and communicative action: robust conceptions of intersubjectivity. Philosophical Studies [J], 108, 121-131.
Givón, T. ( 1990). Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language [J] , 69, 274–307.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Horne, M., Hasson, P., Bruce, G., Frid, J., and Filipsson, M. (2001). Cue words and the topic structure of spoken discourse: the case of Swedish men’but’. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 33, 1061-1081.
Huang, Yan. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics [J], 27, 301-335.
Huang, Yan. ( 2000). Discourse anaphora: four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics [J] , 32, 151-176.
Hawkins & John, A. (2006). A performance theory of order and constituency [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press and Cambridge University Press
Kennelly, S. D. (2003). The implications of quantification for the role of focus in discourse structure. Lingua [J], 113, 1055-1088.
Kennison, S. M. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 49, 335-352.
Lawlor, K. (2002). Memory, anaphora, and content preservation. Philosophical Studies [J], 109, 97-119.
Mason, I. (2006). On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 38, 359-373.
Mitkov, R. (1999). Multilingual anaphora resolution. Machine Translation [J], 14, 281-299.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2004). Topic and focus as linear notions :evidence from Italian and Russian. Lingua [J], 114, 325-344.
Radford, A. ( 2002). Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A Minimalist Approach [M]. Beijing : Peking University Press and Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R., Kendrick, H., & Kim, Y. (2005). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics [M](3rd ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sandu, G. (1997). On the theory of anaphora: dynamic predicate logic vs. game-theoretical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy [J], 20, 147-174.
Smith, S. W., Noda, H. P., Andrews, S., and Jucker, A. H. (2005). Setting the stage: how speakers prepare listeners for the introduction of referents in dialogues and monologues. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 37, 1865-1895.
Suzuki, S. (1995). The functions of topic-encoding zero-marked phrases: a study of the interaction among topic-encoding expressions in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 23, 607-626.
Takubo, Y., & Kinsui, S. (1997). Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics [J], 28, 741-758.
Tao, L., & Healy, A. F. (2005). Zero anaphora: transfer of reference tracking strategies from Chinese to English. Journal of Pycholinguistic Research [J], 34, 99-131.
Van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points: a cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora. Constraints. Language [J], 71,310-339.
Vonk, W., & Bestgen, Y. (2000). Temporal adverbials as segmentation markers in discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language [J], 42, 74-87.
Widdowson, H. G. (2000). Linguistics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Yule, G (2000). Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
陈香兰,周流溪,2007,异形回指和联想回指理解的转喻动机[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期,1-4。
贾光茂,2006,篇章回指确认中的制约因素研究[J],《西安外国语学院学报》第4期,8-10。
蒋平,2004,零形回指的句法和语篇特征的研究[D],上海外国语大学。
李晓庆,杨玉芳,2004,语篇中指代词的分布规律与心理机制[J],《心理科学进展》第1期,1-9。
刘正光,曹志希, 2007,指称意义与句法变化[J],《外国语》第2期,37-44。
齐曦,2004,英语名词回指及其语篇功能研究[J],《外语教学》第5期,48-51。
王军,2005,论语言语境对回指的限定作用[J],《外语学刊》第5期,18-21。
王军,2006,论篇章距离对回指先行语可及性的影响[J],《山东外语教学》第1期,26-29。
王军,2007,直接回指与间接回指[J],《天津外国语学院学报》第5期,1-6。
王军,2007,主题性:整体回指关系体现出的一种篇章属性[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期,6-8。
王义娜,2006,从可及性到主观性:语篇指称模式比较[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期,1-4。
翁依琴,熊学亮,2005,回指的形式语用学初探[J],《外语研究》第2期,6-9。
熊学亮,1999,《英汉前指现象对比》〔M],上海:复旦大学出版社。
熊学亮,刘东虹,2007,论证文中抽象实体的回指研究[J],《四川外语学院学报》第1期,75-79。
徐烈炯,1990,《语义学》〔M],北京:语文出版社。
许保芳,肖德法,2008,语篇回指的多维研究综述[J],《西安外国语学院学报》第1期,22-24。
许余龙,1992,《对比语言学概论》〔M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2000,英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J],《外语教学与研究》第5期,321-328。
许余龙,2005,语篇回指实证研究中的数据库建设[J],《外国语》第2期,23-29。
许余龙,贺小聃,2007,英汉语下指的篇章功能和语用分析[J],《外语教学与研究》第6期,417-423。
许余龙, 2007,话题引入与篇章回指[J],《外语教学与研究》第6期,1-5。
杨永忠,2006,联想回指分析[J],《山东外语教学》第5期,48-53。
俞洪亮,2003,语篇连贯的外部条件:语篇回指的心理表征分析[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期,13-17。
赵宏、邵志宏,2002,汉英第三人称代词语篇指称功能对比研究[J],《外语教学与研究》第3期,417-423。
张德禄,2006,语篇连贯的宏观原则研究[J],《外语与外语教学》第10期,7-13。