摘要
体裁互文性作为一个热门话题,已经从不同角度被讨论和定义过。在批评性研究领域中,体裁互文性是指“不同语篇体裁或类型之间的现今的或历史的关系,每一种语篇体裁或类型都是以一个集合主体或一类使用者为前提的,因为每一类语篇都是受到某个社会团体,阶层或机构的控制,不同的社会组织对不同的语篇体裁或类型具有优先权”。在体裁研究领域,体裁互文性则被定义为体裁的动态性和混合性,因为体裁是动态的和历史性的,它总会对社会体系其它方面的动态变化做出反应。
我们认为,尽管体裁互文性已经在一定程度上被深入讨论,但现有的对体裁互文性的研究还存在着不少局限和不足。第一,体裁互文性理应是有关体裁的语言交际现象,有关体裁互文性的研究不可避免地将以体裁研究为基础。但由于影响语篇体裁的因素多种多样,我们很难对其做出明确的结论性论断,甚至我们在决定某一个语篇是否属于某种体裁时都难免有任意之嫌。大多数关于体裁本质属性的研究都是从某一个角度,以某一种方式进行研究。所以,对体裁本质属性的认识的角度性在一定程度上阻碍了体裁互文性研究的完善。第二,已有的体裁互文性研究比较注重对体裁互文现象的形式上的描述。即使有对体裁互文发生机制的讨论,也受研究方法和角度的限制,很少涉及体裁互文的认知机制。第三,虽然在批评话语分析中,我们早已承认体裁互文和社会意识形态之间存在着密切的联系,但就它们之间的可操作链接策略并没有做出过进一步的讨论。对于在体裁互文过程中什么是社会意识形态的载体,它是以何种形式作用于体裁互文的,还没有明确的定论。最后,体裁互文性理应被置于某个理论框架之中或基于某种理论进行研究,但由于这些理论本身存在着的角度的或目的的局限性,使得体裁互文性研究很难做到全面和完善。这种局限性还同时表现在研究层面的无法突破。如现有的涉及体裁互文性的研究如篇际互文性(interdiscursivity)的研究由于注重篇际互文性的语言实现,其研究层面始终停留于语篇甚至语篇以下层面的互文性研究。篇际互文性中的语篇互文性和更宏观意义上的体裁互文性的特质区别很难区分,毕竟语篇是体裁的具体实现载体。
鉴于以上对现有体裁互文性研究的总结和思考,我们认为有必要建立一个全面的,宏观层面的关于体裁的互文性研究理论框架。我们为体裁互文性研究所建立的理论框架是一个宏观社会符号理论框架。符号学和语言学的结合是由来已久的努力方向,其结合的可行性,有效性以及使得语言研究更全面的价值早有定论。我们通过分析索绪尔,皮尔斯,以及之后的韩礼德等人对语言符号的观点,提出了一个关于语言及其周围环境的宏观社会符号体系。这一体系的构建明确了语篇,语域,体裁以及意识形态之间的关系。我们论证了将语篇视作为一个完整象征符号而非语言符号复合体的合理性和必要性,并在此基础上提出,体裁作为语言符号宏观体系中的最高层面,其实质是宏观社会符号过程体系(macro social semiosis system)。于是,体裁互文性即可被定义为宏观社会符号过程体系中各成分元素之间的互动关系。这一关系本身又可视作为一种符号过程。因而,我们对于体裁互文性的研究借鉴了对语言符号的两分法研究方法,即分别对体裁互文系统和体裁互文过程进行研究。不仅于此,基于对语言及其周围环境的宏观社会符号体系的建构和分析,我们进一步发展了体裁互文性研究的三维性理论框架模型,除了体裁互文系统和体裁互文过程,还提出了体裁互文焦点这一研究维度。
在体裁互文系统的维度上,体裁互文被视作为一个含有若干体裁互文潜势的资源系统,具体包括体裁互文学科知识潜势(disciplinary knowledge potentials),体裁互文宏观话语行为潜势(macro-speech act potentials),体裁互文评价潜势(evaluation potentials),以及体裁互文模态潜势(modality potentials)。我们对于体裁互文系统中各个潜势的论断是基于体裁研究,以及符号多模态研究的基础之上的。体裁本质属性和体裁定性标准为体裁互文系统中的学科知识潜势,体裁互文宏观话语行为潜势,体裁互文评价潜势提供了有力的理论依据,而符号学对多模态的研究则为体裁互文模态潜势的提出提供了必要的理论支持。
我们对体裁互文系统的讨论是探究体裁互文活动中有哪些资源可供选择参与,而我们对体裁互文过程的探讨则是试图回答体裁互文是如何得以实现,或者说是尝试性地对体裁互文发生过程的认知机制作出解释。对体裁互文的认知机制的探讨包括两个方面,首先是对体裁互文系统中各个潜势的认知模型进行了讨论;然后在此基础上提出,体裁互文过程可以被理解为一种概念整合过程,因此完全可以借用空间整合理论来解释体裁互文过程的概念整合机制。根据心理空间整合理论,概念整合过程涉及四个心理空间,两个输入空间,一个类属空间和一个整合空间。由体裁互文资源系统中的不同潜势元素组成的输入空间,经过类属空间操作机制处理后,被整合成一个以体裁互文潜势元素混合为特质的动态解释空间。这一过程就是具有概念整合性质的体裁互文过程。
我们的研究始终坚持语言符号观,将体裁视为宏观社会符号过程体系,体裁互文涉及的是宏观社会符号过程体系中各成分元素之间的关系,所以强调符号“解释项”的存在价值。体裁互文中所涉及的解释是一种选择性的解释,因而我们不得不考虑体裁互文过程中选择的动机(motivation)。基于此,我们提出了体裁互文研究的第三个维度,体裁互文焦点。体裁互文焦点的讨论旨在借用行动理论对决定体裁互文参与者为何选择体裁空间中的某种体裁互文潜势元素参与体裁互文,即参与者的选择动机做出解释。从这个意义上来说,对体裁互文焦点的讨论是对体裁互文过程的补充性探讨。这一动机实际操控的就是体裁输入空间中的体裁互文潜势焦点。我们认为,是“意图”(intention)操控和决定了体裁互文过程中的焦点选择。
我们在建构语言及其环境的宏观符号系统时,论证了意识形态与系统的各个层面之间都存在一种监控和影响的互动关系。所以我们认为,体裁互文作为一种语言现象理应与意识形态之间存在着一种相互影响的关系,而意识形态对体裁互文的监控和影响作用是通过意图得以实现的。
完成在理论层面的对体裁互文研究的三维理论框架的推导后,我们进一步将从理论层面上得出的结论应用于对英语教学领域的实践指导中,以期对英语教学领域的各个方面都有启示性作用。
本文共分成八个章节。第一章是对研究的起源,理论,目的和论文的组织框架进行了概括性的介绍。第二章作为文献综述整理了涉及体裁互文性的已有相关研究成果,并对先前研究中存在的不足进行评述。第三章是理论框架模型建构。基于体裁研究,我们重新界定体裁互文性,论证了在符号学范畴中建立宏观社会符号理论体系的必要性,并在此基础上推导出一个适合于体裁互文研究的三维理论模型。第四章到第六章分别对该三维理论模型中的三个维度,即体裁互文系统,体裁互文过程,体裁互文焦点做了深入探讨。第七章是将理论性的结论应用于指导英语教学实践之中的尝试。最后,第八章则是对本研究的主要结论,发现,不足,以及将来对体裁互文性进一步深入研究的方向做出总结。
总之,本研究旨在为体裁互文研究建构一个相对全面的,完整的三维理论框架模型。我们在符号学范畴中将一个全新的宏观社会符号观引入了体裁互文性的研究中。这种宏观层面的符号思想成功地使得体裁互文性研究突破了语言单模态的传统研究方法,将符号的多模态性带入体裁互文性研究的理论框架模式。在我们将空间整合理论应用于对体裁互文过程的认知机制的诠释时,我们就已经是对将整合理论应用于更广泛领域的一次尝试,也对体裁互文研究思路的拓宽给予启示。而我们为体裁互文提出的第三个研究维度对于明确社会意识形态与作为语言现象的体裁互文之间链接的通道和实现手段有着重要的启示意义。
本研究是一项基于理论推导的理论框架模式建构研究,我们期望本研究不仅能使我们对体裁互文现象的意义、价值,现象背后的认知机制,以及其与社会建构之间的关系有更深刻的认识和理解,同时也期望对英语实践领域及其它研究领域提供实践指导和理论参照。
Generic intertextuality has been discussed a lot and has been defined differently in various perspectives. In critical approach, it“is mainly concerned with current or historical relations between genres or types of discourse, each of which can be seen as presupposing a collective subject or a kind of addressees in the sense that each type of discourse is more or less in the monopoly of a social group, a class or an institution and different social sections are privileged by different discourse types”. (Xin Bin, Intertextuality from a Critical Perspective 93) In Generic studies, generic intertextuality refers to the dynamic and mixture of genres, since genres are dynamic and historical, responding to the dynamics of other parts of social systems.
Although generic intertextuality has been studied a lot, the studies in generic intertextuality are not satisfactory and obviously have some limitations. First of all, studies in the essential properties of genre in some sense hinder the exploration of generic intertextuality. Generic intertextuality is a type of intertextuality mainly involving genres. The properties of genre are extremely diverse and always concluded from certain perspectives, which determine it is by no means easy to decide all criteria for genre. It often appears to be rather arbitrary to decide what can be involved in generic intertextuality.
Secondly, it seems that the previous studies in generic intertextuality prefer to the variations in generic strategies in formal ways. The formal features of generic intertextuality are more concerned and the issues of the cognitive mechanism in generic intertextuality process are less addressed.
Thirdly, although the closely relationship between generic intertextuality and ideologies has been well accepted in studies in generic intertextuality in critical approach, no further details about any operable linkage between them are explored. We have not got full ideas about how to realize the association between generic intertextuality and ideologies, or what the carrier of ideologies is and in what way ideologies function in generic intertextuality.
Last but not least, the theoretical foundation for generic intertextuality seems not convincing or sensible enough. Studies in generic intertextuality are variously conducted based on different theoretical assumptions. Each rationale used in studies is partly convincing and sensible since it only concerns one perspective or dimension of generic intertextuality. And furthermore, as studies relevant to generic intertextuality such as interdiscursivity more focus on the interdiscursive characters of a text being realized in semantic, grammatical and lexical features of the text, we actually explore generic intertextuality at the level of discourse rather than genre. We can hardly distinguish intertextuality on the genre level from that on the discourse level. After all, every discourse is a configuration of genre.
Thus, we may well suggest the necessity of constructing a more macro and powerful or inclusive rationale for studies in generic intertextuality. The rationale we try to construct is a macro social semiotic rationale. It is well known that semiology is first proposed by the great linguist Saussure whose aim is to set up an appropriate position for language study. So, semiology is kind of language oriented and the foundation for interaction, interdependence, and interrelational constraints between linguistics and semiology has been long set. The combination of semiotics and linguistics is not only possible or practical but also sensible. (Wang Mingyu,“Linguistic Semiotics from the Semiotic Perspective”8)
Taking Saussure’s view of language as semiotic, Peirce’s approach to semiotic, and Halliday’s view of language as social semiotic, we set up a system for language as well as its environmental semiotics in a macro way. By the system of language and its environmental semiotics, we make clear the positions of discourse, register, genre and ideology as well as the relationships among them. We define the discourse as a whole sign rather than a collection of signs, hence genre as the highest plane in the system of language and its environmental semiotics is in essential a macro social semiosis system. Accordingly, generic intertextuality can be considered as the relations among the components within the semiosis system of genre, which itself can be taken as semiosis system.
Based on this view, we try to employ the approach for semiotic studies to our generic intertextuality study. There are at least two dimensions we can take in generic intertextuality study, generic intertextuality system and generic intertextuality process. What’s more, according to our global analysis on system of language and its environmental semiotics, we propose the third dimension, generic intertextuality focus.
In the dimension of generic intertextuality system, generic intertextuality is a resource system with sets of potentials, including disciplinary potentials, macro-speech act potentials, evaluation potentials, and modality potentials. With the help of genre studies, we accomplish disciplinary potentials, macro-speech act potentials and evaluation potentials; while by referring to studies in multimodalities in semiotics we bring about modality potentials.
If generic intertextuality system is to answer what are potentials to choose, generic intertextuality process is to find the cognitive mechanism of generic intertextuality, explaining how the potentials of the resource system can be chosen from to realize the process of generic intertextuality or the configuration of generic intertextuality system. The cognitive mechanism of generic intertextuality embraces two respects. One is about the cognitive models for each set of potentials, and the other one is about conceptual integration in the form of mental models. We employ a space blending theory to explain generic intertextuality process. There are four spaces in blending, specifically two input spaces, one generic space and one blended space. Probably, more than two genre spaces as input spaces are integrated into the blended space through generic space.
Generic intertextuality as the relations among the components within the semiosis system of genre must highlight the values of interpretant in its process. The interpretant in generic intertexutality process is the motivation of choice which is the theme of our third dimension for generic intertextuality study. Our discussion of generic intertextuality focus is to answer why this part of input spaces is mapped, not the others, or what the motivation of the blending is. In this sense, the discussion of generic intertextuality focus is a complement to that of generic intertextuality process. It is answered by reference to an action theory. We assume that the key notion of intention in the theory of action controls the focus of generic intertextuality.
Furthermore, since we have proven the interdependent relation between ideologies and each plane, we even discuss the role of ideologies functioning on the focus and argue that there is always an interaction between ideologies and generic intertextuality. They are mutually influenced and interdependent.
After the three-dimensional theoretical model construction, we further apply our achievements to diverse domains of English teaching, hoping what we have achieved can have some implications for pedagogy.
We divide our dissertation into eight chapters. Chapter One is to give an overall introduction of our study. It briefs the origins of our study, illustrates the rationale of our study, make clear the aims and objectives we try to achieve, and skeletons the outline of the dissertation. Chapter Two presents a review of relevant theoretical background of generic intertextuality. In this chapter, conclusive statements of achievements from previous studies in generic intertextuality as well as their deficiencies are given. Chapter Three is to construct a three-dimensional theoretical model for generic intertextuality study with a macro social semiotic rationale. From Chapter Four to Chapter Six, we respectively discuss generic intertextuality system, generic intertextuality process and generic intertextuality focus in detail. Chapter Seven is devoted to the applications in English teaching. Some hints for English teaching we get from generic intertextuality study are stated briefly. The last chapter summarizes the major findings of our study. And meanwhile, some limitations are also present and suggestions for further research are proposed.
Our study in generic intertextuality is an attempt to build a comprehensive and multi-dimensional framework for generic intertextuality. We introduce a new macro social semiotic view into our study in generic intertextuality, which successfully broadens the language-as-only-modality approach to study in generic intertextuality into a multimodality approach. And when we employ the blending theory to explain the cognitive mechanism in generic intertextuality process, we manage to extend the horizon for generic intertextuality study. Furthermore, the third dimension we propose for generic intertextuality study is significant for making clear the closely relationship between ideologies and generic intertextuality, as well as realizing the link between them.
The aim of our study is to construct a multi-dimensional theoretical model for generic intertextuality study to help more deeply realize its values and understand its cognitive mechanism and get some ideas of its relationship with social construction. Besides, we also hope our study can provide some hints for English practices in any domains and theoretical reference for studies in other fields.
引文
Allen, Graham. Intertextuality. London: Routledge, 2000.
Anthonissen, Christine.“Interaction between Visual and Verbal Communication: Change Patterns in the Printed Media.”Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Ed. Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2003. 297-311.
Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1962.
Bakhtin, M.M.“The Problem of Speech Genres.”The Discourse Reader. Ed. Adam Jaworskl and Nikolas Coupland. London: Routledge, 1999. 121-32.
Barthes, Roland. S/Z. New York: Hill & Wang, 1974.
---. Image-Music-Text. New York: Hill & Wang, 1985.
Bauman, Richard. A World of Others’Words: Cross-Culture Perspectives on Intertextuality. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Bazerman, Charles. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.
---.“Systems of Genres and the Enactment of Social Intentions.”Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. London: Taylor & Francis, 1994. 79-101.
---.“The Life of Genre, the Life of Classroom.”Genre and Writing: Issues, Arguments, Alternatives. Ed. Wendy Bishop and Hans Ostrom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton, 1997. 19-26.
---.“Genre and Identity: Citizenship in the Age of the Internet and the Age of Global Capitalism.”The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2002. 13-37.
Beaugrande, Robert de. Text, Discourse and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Texts. New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Corporation, 1980.
---.“Text Linguistics in Discourse Studies.”Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Teun A.van Dijk. Vol. 1. London: Academic, 1985. 41-70.
---. New Foundations for a Science of Text and Discourse. New Jersey: Ablex, 1997.
---.“The Story of Discourse Analysis.”Discourse as Structure and Process. Ed. Teun A.van Dijk. London: SAGE, 1997. 35-62.
---. Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Works. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
---. Text Linguistics at the Millennium 1. http://beaugrande.bizland.com/Textmillennium 1.htm.
---. A New Introduction to the Study of Text and Discourse. 2004 < http://beaugrande.bizland.com/>.
Beaugrande, Robert de, and Wolfgang U. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman, 1981.
Beebee, Thomas O. The Ideology of Genre. USA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T.N. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognitive/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995.
Bhatia, Vijay K.“Genre-based Approach to ESP Materials.”World Englishes. 10(1991): 153-66.
---. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman, 1993.
---. Worlds of Written Discourse. New York: Continuum, 2004.
---.“Generic Patterns in Promotional Discourse.”Persuasion Across Genres. Ed. Helena
Halmari and Tuija Virtanen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005. 213-25.
Biber, Douglas.“A Typology of English Text.”Linguistics. 27(1989): 3-43.
Bloome, David, and Anne Egan-Robertson.“The Social Construction of Intertextuality in Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons.”Uses of Intertextuality in Classroom and Educational Research. Ed. Nora Shuart-Faris and David Bloome. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing, 2004. 17-64.
Bloor, Thomas, and Meriel Bloor. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited, 2001.
Bourdieu, Pierre.“Language and Symbolic Power.”The Discourse Reader. Ed. Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. London: Routledge, 1999. 502-13.
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Brown, Gillian, Kirsten Malmkj?r, Alastair Pollitt, and John Williams, eds. Language and Understanding. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press; New York: Oxford UP, 1995.
Campcell, K. K. and Jamieson, K. H.“Form and genre in rhetorical criticism: an introduction.”Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action. Ed. K. K. Campbell and K. H. Jamieson. Falls Church, Va: the Speech Communication Association, 1978. 9-32.
Carroll, David W. Psychology of Language. 3rd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Belmont: Thomason Learning Asia, 2000.
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2002.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
Coe, Richard, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko.“Genre as Action, Strategy, and Difference: An Introduction.”The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2002. 1-10.
Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.
Cook, Guy. Discourse and Literature. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press; New York: Oxford UP, 1994.
Coulson, Seana. Semantic Leaps: Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001.
Couture, Barbara.“Exploring the Processes of Written Language Production and Interpretation”. Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives. Ed. Barbara Couture. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.
Croft, William. Typology and Universals. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Crystal, David, and Derek Davy. Investigating English Style. London: Longman, 1969.
Culler, Jonathan. The pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. London: Routledge, 2001.
Deacon, David, et al. Researching Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis. London: Arnold, 1999.
Deely, John. Basics of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Devitt, Amy J.“Intertextuality in Tax Accounting: Generic, Referential, and Functional.”Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Ed. Charles Bazerman and James Paradis. Madison: University of Wisconsin P, 1991. 336-57.
“Disciplinary knowledge.”The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 2001.
Dudley-Evans, T.“Genre Analysis and ESP.”English Language Research Journal. Ed. Dudley-Evans, T. Vol. 1. Birmingham: the University of Birmingham, 1987. 1-9.
“Economics.”The Concise Oxford Dictionary. 9th ed. 2000.
“Economy.”The Concise Oxford Dictionary. 9th ed. 2000.
Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2nd ed. New York: Continuum, 2004.
Eggins, S. & Martin, J.R.“Genres and Registers of Discourse.”Discourse as Structure and Process. Ed. Teun A.van Dijk. London: SAGE, 1997. 230-56.
Eggins, S. & Slade, D. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell, 1997.
Ellis, Henry C., and R. Reed Hunt. Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology. Berks: The McGraw-Hill Company Inc., 1993.
Erickson, F. and J. Schultz. The Counselor as Gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
Fairclough, Norman. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
---.“Technologisation of Discourse.”Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard, and Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1996. 71-83.
---.“Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis.”The Discourse Reader. Ed. Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. London: Routledge, 1999. 183-211.
---. Analyzing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge, 2003.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
---. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Fawcett, Peter. Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2007.
Fowler, Alastair. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Fowler, Roger. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc., 1991.
Frow, John.“Intertextuality and Ontology.”Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Ed. Michael Worton and Judith Still. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. 45-55.
Gage, John T. The Shape of Reason: Argumentative Writing in College. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.
Gee, James Paul. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; London: Routledge, 2000.
Goatly, Andrew. Critical Reading and Writing: An Introductory Coursebook. London: Routledge, 2000.
Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited, 2001.
---. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
---. Linguistic Studies of Texts and Discourse. Ed. Jonathan Webster. London: Continuum, 2002.
Halliday, M.A.K., and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language–based Approach to Cognition. London and New York: Continuum, 1999.
Halliday, M.A.K. and J.R. Martin. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993.
Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Languagein a Social-Semiotics Perspective. 2nd ed. London: Oxford UP, 1989.
---. Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Hamilton, Heidi E.“Intratextuality, intertextuality, and the construction of identity as patient in Alzheimer’s disease.”Text. 16.1(1996): 61-90.
Harris, Roy. Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to Play Games with Words. London: Routledge, 1988.
---. Saussure and his Interpreters. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.
Hatim, Basil. Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2003.
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Hatim, Basil, and Jeremy Munday. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Hawkes, Terence. Structuralism and Semiotics. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977.
Hawkins, Bruce.“The Social Dimension of a Cognitive Grammar.”Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker and Linda Waugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997. 21-36.
Hirsch, Richard.“Semantic Content and Depth of Intention: A Study in Cognitive Semantics.”Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker and Linda Waugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997. 61-83.
Hodge, Robert and Gunther Kress. Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988.
Hoey, Michael. On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983.
---.“Signalling in discourse: a functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English.”Advances in Written Text Analysis. Ed. Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1994. 26-45.
---. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2000.
---. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 2001.
Howarth, David. Discourse: Concepts in the Social Sciences. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000.
Hudson, R. A. Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.
Hymes, D.“Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.”Directions in Sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication. Ed. J.Gumperz and D.Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. 35-71.
---. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Jaworski, Adam, and Nikolas Coupland.“Introduction: Perspectives on Discourse Analysis.”The Discourse Reader. Ed. Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. London: Routledge, 1999. 1-44.
Johansen, J?rgen Dines, and Svend Erik Larsen. Signs in Use: An Introduction to Semiotics. Trans. Dinda L. Gorlée and John Irons. London: Routledge, 2002.
Johns, Ann M. Text, Role, and Context: Developing Academic Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.
Johns, Tim.“The Text and its Message.”Advances in Written Text Analysis. Ed. Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1994. 102-116.
Johnstone, Barbara. Qualitative methods in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Kress, Gunther., ed. Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Kress, Gunther.“Representational Resources and the Production of Subjectivity: Questions for the Theoretical Development of Critical Discourse Analysis in a Multicultural Society.”Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard, and Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1996. 15-31.
Kress, Gunther, and Robert Hodge. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1979.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen.“Representation and Interaction: Designing the Position of the Viewer.”The Discourse Reader. Ed. Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. London: Routledge, 1999. 377-403.
Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia UP, 1980.
---. The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1986.
Leeuwen, Theo van.“The Representation of Social Actors.”Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard, and Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1996. 32-70.
Lemke, J. L.“Interpersonal meaning in discourse: value orientations.”Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice. Ed. Martin Davies and Louise Ravelli. London: Pinter Publishers, 1992. 82-104.
---.“Ideology, Intertextuality and the Communication of Science.”Relations and Functions within and around Language. Ed. Peter H. Fries, Michael Cummings, and William Spruiell. London: continuum, 2002. 32-55.
---.“Texts and Discourses in the Technologies of Social Organization.”Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Ed. Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2003. 130-49.
---.“Ideology, Intertextuality, and the Notion of Register.”Systemic Perspectives on Discourse. Ed. James D. Benson and Williams Greaves. Vol. 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985. 175-294.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Lycan, William G.. Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge, 2000.
Martin J.R.“Language, Register and Genre.”Children Writing: Reader. Ed. F. Christie. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press, 1984. 21-30.
---.”Grammaticalizing Ecology: the Politics of Baby Seals and Kangaroos.”Language, Semiotics, Ideology. Ed. T. Threadgold et al. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture, 1986. 225-68.
---. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992.
---. English Text: System and Structure. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
Martin, J.R., and David Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2007.
Martin, J.R., and P.R.R. White. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
McCathy, Michael. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.
McCathy, Michael and Ronald Carter. Language as Discourse Perspectives for Language Teaching. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
“Mechanism.”Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. 1995.
“Mechanism.”The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Englsih. 9th ed. 1995.
Medway, Peter.“Fuzzy Genres and Community Identities: The Case of Architecture Students’Sketchbooks.”The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2002. 123-53.
Miall, David S.“Literary Discourse.”Handbook of Discourse Processes. Ed. Arthur C. Graesser, Morton Ann Gernsbacher and Susan R. Goldman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. 321-55.
Miller, C.R.“Genre as social Action.”Quarterly Journal of Speech. 70 (1984): 151-76. Myers, Greg. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
Morgan, Tha?s.“The Space of Intertextuality.”Intertextuality and Contemporary American Fiction. Ed. Partrick O’Donnell and Robert Con Davis. U.S.A: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. 239-79.
Orr, Mary. Intertextuality: Debates and Contexts. UK: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003.
Paré, Anthony.“Genre and Identity: Individuals, Institutions, and Ideology.”The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2002. 57-71.
Paré, Anthony, and Graham Smart.“Observing genres in action: Towards a research methodology.”Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. London: Taylor and Francis, 1994. 146-54.
Philips, Nelson, and Cynthia Hardy. Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.
Reader, Keith A.“Literature / Cinema / Television: Intertextuality in Jean Renoir’s Le Testament du docteur Cordelier.”Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Ed. Michael Worton and Judith Still. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. 176-89.
Riffaterre, Michael.“Compulsory Reader Response: The Intertextual Drive.”Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Ed. Michael Worton and Judith Still. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. 56-78.
Rohrer, Tim.“Conceptual Blending on the Information Highway: How Metaphorical Inferences Work.”Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker and Linda Waugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997. 185-204.
Rotzoll, Kim B.“Advertisements.”Discourse and Communication: New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media Discourse and Communication. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1985. 94-105.
Russell, David R.“The Kind-ness of Genre: An Activity Theory Analysis of High School Teachers’Perception of Genre in Portfolio Assessment Across the Curriculum.”The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2002. 225-42.
Samovar, Larry A., Richard E. Porter, and Lisa A. Stefani. Communication Between Cultures. 3rd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; USA: Thomason Learning Asia, 2002.
Saussure, F. de. Course in General Lingusitics. Trans. Roy Harris. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; UK: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 2001.
Schank, R., and R. Abelson. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1977.
Schiffrin, Deborah. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. USA: Blackwell Pub, 2001.
Searle, John R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Selzer, Jack, ed. Understanding Scientific Prose. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1993.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2003.
Spolsky, Bernard.“Comprehension testing, or can understanding be measured?”Language and Understanding. Ed. Gillian Brown, Kristen Malmkjaer, Alastair Pollitt, and John Williams. Oxford University Press, 1995. 139-52.
Still, Judith and Michael Worton.“Introduction.”Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Ed. Michael Worton and Judith Still. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. 1-44.
Stubbs, Michael. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.
Swales, John M. Episodes in Esp. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1985.
---. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
---. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Tannen, D., ed. Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat.“Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination / Interview.”The Discourse Reader. Ed. Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. London: Routledge, 1999. 346-66.
Teslenko, Tatiana.“Ideology and Genre: Heteroglossia of Soviet Genre Theories.”The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2002. 321-40.
Thibault, Paul J.“Contextualization and social meaning-making practices.”Language and Interaction. Ed. Susan L. Eerdmans, Carlo L. Prevignano and Paul J. Thibault. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co., 2003. 41-61.
---.“Body Dynamics, Social Meaning-making, and Scale Heterogeneity.”Language and Interaction. Ed. Susan L. Eerdmans, Carlo L. Prevignano and Paul J. Thibault.Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co., 2003. 127-47.
---. Agency and Consciousness in Discourse: Self-other Dynamics as a Complex System. London: Continuum, 2004.
Thompson, Geoff. Introducing Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Thomas, J.“What is Pragmatics?”Selected Readings for Pragmatics. Ed. He Zhaoxiong. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2003. 32-64.
Thornborrow, Joanna and Shan Wareing. Patterns in Language: Stylistics for Students of Language and Literature. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Ungerer, F., and H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Van Dijk, Teun A. Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman, 1977.
---. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1981.
---.“Opinions and Attitudes in Discourse Comprehension.”Language and Comprehension. Ed. J. F. Le Ny and W. Kintsch. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982. 35-51.
---. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press, 1983.
---.“Structures of News in the Press.”Discourse and Communication: New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media Discourse and Communication. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1985. 69-93.
---. News Analysis. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988.
---. News as Discourse. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988.
---.“Discourse, Power and Access.”Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard, and Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1996. 84-104.
---.“Discourse and the Denial of Racism.”The Discourse Reader. Eds. Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. London: Routledge, 1999. 541-58.
---.“The Discourse-Knowledge Interface.”Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Ed. Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak. New York: PalgraveMacmillan Ltd., 2003. 85-109.
Ventola, Eija.“Interpersonal Choices in Academic Work.”Linguistic Choice Across Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English. Ed. Antonia Sanchez-Macarro and Ronald Carter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998. 117-36.
Volo?inov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. New York: Seminar, 1973.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 3rd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000.
Werth, Paul. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman, 1999.
Widdowson, H. G. Practical Stylistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press; New York: Oxford UP, 1992.
---. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Winter, Eugene.“Clause relations as information structure: two basic text structures in English.”Advances in Written Text Analysis. Ed. Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1994. 46-68.
Yule, G. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
陈嘉映(Chen, Jiaying).语言哲学.北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
陈亚萍(Chen, Yaping).“从认知功能的角度看语篇信息的宏观组织”.外语学刊. 7(2006): 19-21.
---.“英语体裁的类型学研究”.语言学研究与应用. 2(2007): 33-36.
---.“英语体裁多维性研究”.同济大学学报. 1(2008): 79-87.
程雨民(Cheng, Yumin).英语语体学.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
陈忠华(Chen, Zhonghua),刘心全(Liu, Xinquan),杨春苑(Yang, Chunyuan)知识与语篇理解.北京:外语教育与研究出版社, 2005.
郭鸿(Guo, Hong).“当今语言学与符号学的一个重大课题”.中国外语. 5(2006): 13-17.
何兆熊(He, Zhaoxiong),主编.新编语用学概要.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2002.
胡曙中(Hu, Shuzhong).美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
---.英语修辞学.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2002.
---.现代英语修辞学.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
---.英语语篇语言学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
胡壮麟(Hu, Zhuanglin).功能主义纵横谈.北京:外语教育与研究出版社, 2000.
---.“社会符号学研究中的多模态化”.语言教学与研究. 1(2007): 1-10.
胡壮麟(Hu, Zhuanglin),董佳(Dong, Jia).“意义的多模态构建---对一次PPT演
示竞赛的语篇分析”.外语电化教学. 3(2006): 3-12.
胡壮麟(Hu, Zhuanglin),朱永生(Zhu, Yongsheng).系统功能语言学概论.北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
黄国文(Huang, Guowen).语篇分析概要.湖南:湖南教育出版社, 1987.
---.语篇分析的理论与实践---广告语篇研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
---.“功能语篇分析纵横谈”.外语与外语教学. 12(2001): 1-4.
李巧兰(Li, Qiaolan).“皮尔斯与索绪尔符号观比较”.福建师范大学学报. 1(2004): 115-20.
李战子(Li, Zhanzi).话语的人际意义研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
刘辰诞(Liu, Chendan).教学篇章语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
钱敏汝(Qian, Minlu).篇章语用学概论.北京:外语教育与研究出版社, 2001.
申丹(Shen, Dan).“西方现代文体学百年发展历程”.外语教学与研究. (32)2000: 22-27.
托伊恩·A.梵·迪克(Teun A. Van Dijk)著.曾庆香译.作为话语的新闻.北京:华夏出版社, 2003.
王铭玉(Wang, Mingyu).符号语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
---.“从符号学看语言符号学”.解放军外国语学院学报. 27(2004): 1-9.
汪少华(Wang, Shaohua).“合成空间理论对隐喻的阐释力”.外国语. 3(2001): 37-43.
王寅(Wang, Yin).“认知语言学与语篇分析”.外语教学与研究. (35)2003: 83-88.
卫真道著.徐赳纠译.篇章语言学.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2002.
辛斌(Xin, Bin).语篇互文性的批评性分析.苏州:苏州大学出版社, 2000.
---.批评语言学:理论与应用.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
熊学亮(Xiong,Xueliang).认知语用学概论.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
于晖(Yu Hui).语篇体裁分析:学术论文摘要的符号学意义.河南开封:河南大学出版社, 2003.
张德禄(Zhang, Delu).“语类研究的范围及其对外语教学的启示”.外语电化教学. 8( 2002): 59-64.
张绍杰(Zhang, Shaojie).语言符号任意性研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
朱永生(Zhu, Yongsheng).语境动态研究.北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
朱永生(Zhu, Yongsheng),严世清(Yan, Shiqing),苗兴伟(Miao, Xingwei).功能语言学导论.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
朱永生(Zhu, Yongsheng),严世清(Yan, Shiqing).系统功能语言学多维思考.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.