语篇阅读的新修辞视角研究
|
摘要
阅读是人类在现实世界中进行的一项基本社会活动。对阅读的研究在历经了早期的阅读技巧和方法的训练与培养，以及后来的认知心理语言学研究之后，自上世纪90年代开始，国内外对阅读过程的研究又有了新进展，即阅读被视为读者在语篇层面意义构建的社会行为。阅读的社会性就可表征为语篇阅读行为，并可以视为一种意义再构建的过程。基于这一理念，对语篇阅读行为的考察可以纳入新修辞学的研究视域，因为新修辞学是对人类话语活动研究的一门综合学科，关涉语言哲学、语篇语言学和社会语言学等学科。在新修辞学家看来，人类一切话语活动均是象征行为，是话语主体间的一种修辞实践。其中受众在这一实践中的解读作用成为新修辞学理论关注的焦点。因此，阅读的社会性就成为阅读研究和新修辞学关联的基础。具体说来，新修辞学视角下的语篇阅读行为是一种象征行为，体现了包括修辞者、语篇与现实世界在内的一种修辞互动；读者的语篇阅读行为是对文本内容“修辞再发明”的过程。概言之，新修辞理论强调了读者在意义构建中的主动性，认为没有“单纯”的阅读行为，在语篇阅读过程中读者总是带有自己的观点、立场来重构语篇意义。
目前国内外对阅读的研究主要在二语习得、认知语言学和心理语言学等理论领域内进行研究，这些研究取得了很多成果，但其局限性在于忽视了阅读行为的社会属性，没有把读者看作是对阅读内容的意义构建者，而单纯作为参与者和接受者。本研究尝试以西方新修辞学有关意义阐释的理论为基点，结合语篇语言学的相关理论构建本研究的理论基础，形成“语篇—修辞”界面研究范式，将语篇阅读行为作为这一界面研究的切入点，将语篇阅读行为看作是读者在特定修辞情境中对语篇意义解读的“修辞再发明”过程，对语篇阅读的修辞性进行理论分析和解释，并试图构建新的语篇修辞性阅读教学模式。
本项研究以定性研究方法为主，注重新修辞学与语篇语言学之间的理论勾连，研究手段以语料分析为主，通过严密、合理的论证对语篇的修辞性进行思辨性考察，进而重点对语篇阅读的修辞性进行精细的分析和精密的归纳。此外，本研究以理论性和实用性为出发点，汲取新修辞学、语篇语言学、外语教学的相关原理和方法，打通理论与应用的界限，论述了本研究发现所具有的语言教学意义。
本研究是立足新修辞学相关理论来考察语篇阅读活动的一次尝试，主要在以下几个方面做出了有意义的探索：首先，明确了“语篇—修辞”界面研究范式；其次，重新界定了语篇的修辞性，提出语篇修辞性在于其“修辞同一”、“修辞情境”以及“修辞对话”三个层面，它们一同构成了语篇运作的修辞系统；第三，重点分析了作为修辞行为的语篇阅读活动，将语篇阅读视为“修辞再发明”的过程。最后，尝试构建语篇修辞性阅读教学模式，为我国大学英语语篇阅读教学提供一个新的参考范式，这对于培养学生评价性阅读能力具有重要的实践意义。
Reading is a basic social activity that engages humans in the world. Research onreading originated with studies on reading strategies and skills, followed by cognitive andpsychological linguistic approaches. Since the1990s, new breakthroughs have been madein the study on the reading process home and abroad; reading is defined as a social activityof meaning construction on textual level. Sociality of reading is represented as text readingand readers’ social practice of meaning reconstruction. Based on this notion, text readingcan be investigated within the sphere of new rhetoric, which is an interdisciplinary field ofdiscourse studies, spanning such disciplines as the philosophy of language, text linguistics,sociolinguistics, and so on. New rhetoricians hold the view that all human discourseactivities are symbolic acts that rhetorically necessitate intersubjectivity. The role of thereader in meaning interpretation, therefore, is at the core of new rhetoric theories. It is thesociality of reading that bridges text reading and new rhetoric. Specifically, new rhetoricviews text reading as a symbolic act, reflecting a rhetorical interaction between rhetors,texts and reality. Also, text reading is a process of meaning “re-invention”. In short, newrhetoric emphasizes the readers’ initiative and advocates that there is no “simple” readingbecause the reader always reconstructs textual meaning from his or her own opinion orstandpoint in the reading process.
Current research on reading is primarily in the theoretical realms of second languageacquisition, cognitive linguistics and psychological linguistics. It produces fruitful researchfindings. However, such research pays little attention to the sociality of reading. In otherwords, most current research does not acknowledge readers as constructors of textualmeaning, but rather limits them to the status of participant or recipient. This study attemptsto propose a research paradigm of “text-rhetoric” interface which is formed on the basis ofnew rhetoric theories on meaning interpretation and relevant theories of text lingusitics.Accordingly, text reading is the crux of this paradigm, thus highlighting the reader’srhetorical act of “re-inventing” the meaning of a text in a rhetorical situation. Its aim is tomake a theoretical analysis and exploration of rhetoricity of text reading and to construct anew teaching mode of rhetorical text reading.
This study is conducted according to a qualitative methodology and focuses ontheoretical connections between new rhetoric and text linguistics. This explorationlogically gives a strict and valid argumentation of rhetoricity of text with text analysis inorder to make a careful analysis and elaborate induction of rhetoricity of text reading.Moreover, this study theoretically and practically combines relevant theories and principlesfrom new rhetoric, text linguistics and foreign language teaching, breaks theoretical andpractical boundaries, and discusses the pedagogical implications for language teaching.
The present research is a tentative exploration of text reading from the new rhetoricperspective undertaken to accomplish the following aims:1) propose a paradigm for“text-rhetoric” interface study;2) redefine the rhetoricity of text reasonably and proposethat “rhetorical identification”,“rhetorical situations” and “rhetorical dialogue” constitutethe rhetoricity of text and build up rhetorical system of text operation;3) emphasize textreading as rhetorical act via the process of “re-invention”;4) construct a new mode ofrhetorical reading of texts, which serves as a new way of teaching for college English textreading and has practical significance for cultivating evaluative reading competence ofcollege students.
目前国内外对阅读的研究主要在二语习得、认知语言学和心理语言学等理论领域内进行研究，这些研究取得了很多成果，但其局限性在于忽视了阅读行为的社会属性，没有把读者看作是对阅读内容的意义构建者，而单纯作为参与者和接受者。本研究尝试以西方新修辞学有关意义阐释的理论为基点，结合语篇语言学的相关理论构建本研究的理论基础，形成“语篇—修辞”界面研究范式，将语篇阅读行为作为这一界面研究的切入点，将语篇阅读行为看作是读者在特定修辞情境中对语篇意义解读的“修辞再发明”过程，对语篇阅读的修辞性进行理论分析和解释，并试图构建新的语篇修辞性阅读教学模式。
本项研究以定性研究方法为主，注重新修辞学与语篇语言学之间的理论勾连，研究手段以语料分析为主，通过严密、合理的论证对语篇的修辞性进行思辨性考察，进而重点对语篇阅读的修辞性进行精细的分析和精密的归纳。此外，本研究以理论性和实用性为出发点，汲取新修辞学、语篇语言学、外语教学的相关原理和方法，打通理论与应用的界限，论述了本研究发现所具有的语言教学意义。
本研究是立足新修辞学相关理论来考察语篇阅读活动的一次尝试，主要在以下几个方面做出了有意义的探索：首先，明确了“语篇—修辞”界面研究范式；其次，重新界定了语篇的修辞性，提出语篇修辞性在于其“修辞同一”、“修辞情境”以及“修辞对话”三个层面，它们一同构成了语篇运作的修辞系统；第三，重点分析了作为修辞行为的语篇阅读活动，将语篇阅读视为“修辞再发明”的过程。最后，尝试构建语篇修辞性阅读教学模式，为我国大学英语语篇阅读教学提供一个新的参考范式，这对于培养学生评价性阅读能力具有重要的实践意义。
Reading is a basic social activity that engages humans in the world. Research onreading originated with studies on reading strategies and skills, followed by cognitive andpsychological linguistic approaches. Since the1990s, new breakthroughs have been madein the study on the reading process home and abroad; reading is defined as a social activityof meaning construction on textual level. Sociality of reading is represented as text readingand readers’ social practice of meaning reconstruction. Based on this notion, text readingcan be investigated within the sphere of new rhetoric, which is an interdisciplinary field ofdiscourse studies, spanning such disciplines as the philosophy of language, text linguistics,sociolinguistics, and so on. New rhetoricians hold the view that all human discourseactivities are symbolic acts that rhetorically necessitate intersubjectivity. The role of thereader in meaning interpretation, therefore, is at the core of new rhetoric theories. It is thesociality of reading that bridges text reading and new rhetoric. Specifically, new rhetoricviews text reading as a symbolic act, reflecting a rhetorical interaction between rhetors,texts and reality. Also, text reading is a process of meaning “re-invention”. In short, newrhetoric emphasizes the readers’ initiative and advocates that there is no “simple” readingbecause the reader always reconstructs textual meaning from his or her own opinion orstandpoint in the reading process.
Current research on reading is primarily in the theoretical realms of second languageacquisition, cognitive linguistics and psychological linguistics. It produces fruitful researchfindings. However, such research pays little attention to the sociality of reading. In otherwords, most current research does not acknowledge readers as constructors of textualmeaning, but rather limits them to the status of participant or recipient. This study attemptsto propose a research paradigm of “text-rhetoric” interface which is formed on the basis ofnew rhetoric theories on meaning interpretation and relevant theories of text lingusitics.Accordingly, text reading is the crux of this paradigm, thus highlighting the reader’srhetorical act of “re-inventing” the meaning of a text in a rhetorical situation. Its aim is tomake a theoretical analysis and exploration of rhetoricity of text reading and to construct anew teaching mode of rhetorical text reading.
This study is conducted according to a qualitative methodology and focuses ontheoretical connections between new rhetoric and text linguistics. This explorationlogically gives a strict and valid argumentation of rhetoricity of text with text analysis inorder to make a careful analysis and elaborate induction of rhetoricity of text reading.Moreover, this study theoretically and practically combines relevant theories and principlesfrom new rhetoric, text linguistics and foreign language teaching, breaks theoretical andpractical boundaries, and discusses the pedagogical implications for language teaching.
The present research is a tentative exploration of text reading from the new rhetoricperspective undertaken to accomplish the following aims:1) propose a paradigm for“text-rhetoric” interface study;2) redefine the rhetoricity of text reasonably and proposethat “rhetorical identification”,“rhetorical situations” and “rhetorical dialogue” constitutethe rhetoricity of text and build up rhetorical system of text operation;3) emphasize textreading as rhetorical act via the process of “re-invention”;4) construct a new mode ofrhetorical reading of texts, which serves as a new way of teaching for college English textreading and has practical significance for cultivating evaluative reading competence ofcollege students.
引文
Adams, J. M.,&Collins, A. A Schema-Theoretic View of Reading [A]. In R.O.Freedle (eds.), New Directions in Discourse Processing [C]. New Jersey:ABLEX Publishing Corporation,1979:1-22.
Anderson, R. C. Schema-directed Processes in Language Comprehension [A]. In A.M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino, S. D. Fokkema,&R. Glaser (eds.), CognitivePsychology and Instruction [C]. New York: Plenum Press,1978:67-82.
Anderson, N. Reading [A]. In D. Nunan (eds.), Practical English Language Teaching[C]. New York: McGraw-Hill,2003:67-86.
Aristotle. Rhetoric [M]. trans. W. R. Roberts. New York: Dover Publications, Inc,2004.
Asher, N.,&Lascarides, A. Logics of Conversation [M]. Beijing: Beijing UniversityPress,2010.
Ausubel, D. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View [M]. New York: HoltRhinehart&Winston,1968.
Bakhtin, M. The Dialogue Imagination [M]. trans. C. Emerson&M. Holquist. Austin:University of Texas,1981.
Bakhtin, M. The Problem of Speech Genres [A]. trans. M. Holquist, C. Emerson,&V.McGee. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [M]. Austin: University of Texas,1986.
Bakhtin, M.,&Voloshinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language [M].trans. L. Matejka&I. Titunik, Cambridge: Harvard University,1986.
Barnett, M. A. More than Meets the Eye: Foreign Language Reading: Theory andPractice [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents,1989.
Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1932.
Barton, E.,&Stygall, G. Discourse Studies in Composition [M]. New Jersey:Hampton Press Inc,2002.
Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J.,&Tindal, G. Examining the Structure ofReading Comprehension: do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehensiontruly exist?[J]. Read Writ,2013,(26):349-379.
Bazerman, C. Shaping Written knowledge: The Genre and activity of the experimentalarticle in Science [M]. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,1988.
Bean, C., Chappell A.,&Gillam, M. A. Reading Rhetorically [M]. New York:Pearson Education, Inc,2007.
Beaugrande, D. Text, Discourse and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science ofTexts [M]. New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Corporation,1980.
Beaugrande, D.,&Dressler, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London:Longman,1981.
Benoit, L. W.,&Smythe, J. M. Rhetorical Theory as Message Reception: A CognitiveResponse Approach to Rhetorical Theory and Criticism [J]. CommunicationStudies,2003,(1):96-114.
Benson, W. T. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism [M]. California: HermagorasPress,1993.
Bitzer, L. The Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1968,(1):1-14.
Bizzell, P.,&Herzberg, B. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Timesto the Present [M]. Boston: St. Martin’s Press,1990.
Booth, W. The Rhetoric of RHETORIC [M]. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub,2004.
Borchers, A. T. Persuasion in the Media Age [M]. New York: Mcgraw-Hill,2005.
Borchers, A. T. Rhetorical Theory: An Introduction [M]. Long Grove: Waveland PressInc.,2011.
Brent, D. Reading as Rhetorical Invention: Knowledge, Persuasion, and the Teachingof Research-Based Writing [D]. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English,1992.
Brown, G. Language and Understanding [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994.
Brown, G.,&Yule, G. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1983.
Browne, H. S. Close Textual Analysis: Approaches and Applications [A]. In A. J.Kuypers (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action [C]. Plymouth:Lexington Books,2009:63-76.
Brummett, B. Some Implications of “Process” or “Intersubjectivity”: PostmodernRhetoric [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1976,(9):21-51.
Bryant, D. C. Rhetoric: Its Function and its Scope [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1953,(39):401-424.
Burke, K. Rhetoric—Old and New [J]. Journal of General Education,1951,(5):203-205.
Burke, K. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method [M].Berkeley: University of California Press,1966.
Burke, K. A Rhetoric of Motives [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1969a.
Burke, K. A Grammar of Motives.[M] Berkeley: University of California Press,1969b.
Burke, K. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1973a.
Burke, K. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. In L. Thayer (ed.), Communication: Ethicaland Moral Issues [C]. New York: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers,1973b:263-275.
Burke, K. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1984.
Carleton, W. A. What is Rhetorical Knowledge? A Response to Farrell—and more [J].Quarterly Journal of Speech,1978,(1):313-328.
Carrell, P., Devine, J.,&Eskey, D. Interactive Approaches to Second LanguageReading [M]. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation,2006.
Chafe, W. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Follow and Displacement ofConscious Experience in Speaking and Writing [M]. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press,1994.
Coady, J. A Psycholinguistic Model of the ESL Reader [A]. In R. MacKay, B.Barkman&R. R. Jordan (ed.), Reading in a Second Language: Hypothesis,Organization and Practice [C], Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1979:5-12.
Coates, J. The Negotiation of Coherence in Face-to-face Interaction: Some Examplesfrom Extreme Bounds [A]. In M. A. Gernsbacher&T. Givón (eds.), Coherencein Spontaneous Text [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1995.
Consigny, S. Rhetoric and Its Situations [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1974,(7):172-182.
Cook, G. Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1989.
Cook, P. The Rhetoricity of Cultural Literacy [J]. Pedagogy,2009,(3):487-500.
Corbett, E. P. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1999.
Coulthard, M. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Routledge,1992.
Coulthard, M. Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London: Routledge,1994.
Crandall, J. The Why, What, and How of ESL Reading Instruction: Some Guidelinesfor Writers of ESL Reading Textbooks [A]. In P. Byrd (ed.), Material Writer’sGuide [C]. Boston: Heinle&Heinle Publishers,1995:79-94.
Day, D. Persuasion and the Concepts of Identification [J]. The Quaterly Journal ofSpeech,1960,(3):270-273.
Denman, W. N. Rhetoric, the “citizen-orator”, and the revitalization of civic discoursein American life [A]. In C. Glenn, M. Lyday,&W. Sharer (eds.), RhetoricalEducation in America [C]. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,2004:3-17.
Eberly, R. Citizen Critics: Literary Public Spheres [M]. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress,2000.
Eberly, R. Rhetoric and the anti-logos doughball: Teaching Deliberating Bodies thePractices of participatory Democracy [J]. Rhetoric and Public Affairs,2002,(5):287-300.
Edwards, R.,&Nicoll, K. Researching the Rhetoric of Lifelong Learning [J]. Journalof Education Policy,2001,(2):103-112.
Ehninger, D. On Systems of Rhetoric [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1968,(3):131-144.
Ehninger, D. Comtemporary Rhetoric: A Reader’s Coursebook [M]. Glenview: Scott,Foresman&Company,1982.
Enos, T. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Compostion: Communication from AncientTimes to the Information Age [C]. New York: Garland,1996.
Eskey, D. E. Holding in the bottom: an interactive approach to the language problemsof second language readers [A]. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine,&E. David (eds.),Interactive Approaches to Seocond Language Reading [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge Univerisity Press,1988:93-100.
Fahnestock, J.,&Secor, M. Rhetorical Analysis [A]. In L. E, Barton&G, Stygall(eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition [C]. New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc,2002:177-200.
Farmer, F. Landmark Essays on Bakhtin, Rhetoric and Writing [C]. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,1998.
Farrell, K.,&Young, M. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. In A. J, Kuypers (ed.),Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action [C]. Plymouth: Lexington Books,2009:33-37.
Farrell, T. B. From the Parthenon to the Bassinet: Death and Rebirth along theEpistemic Trail [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1990,(9):78-84.
Firth, J. R. A Synopsis of Linguistic theory,1930-1955[J]. In Studies in LinguisticAnalysis (Special issue.), Philological Society of London,1957:1-32.
Fogarty, D. J. Roots for a new rhetoric [M]. New York: Bureau of Publications,1959.
Foss, S. K. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric [M]. Long Grove: WavelandPress, Inc.,1985.
Foss, S. K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration&Practice [M]. Long Grove: WavelandPress, Inc.,2004/2009.
Freedle, R. O. New Directions in Discourse Processing (Volume II)[M]. New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation,1979.
Gaonkar, P. D. The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science [A]. In G, Gross&W,Keith (ed.), Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age ofScience [C]. Albany: State University of New York Press,1997:25-88.
Geisser, H. On Rhetoricity and Literarity [J]. Communication Education,1983,(3):275-284.
Gernsbacher, M. A. Language Comprehension as Structure Building [M]. New Jersey:Erlbaum,1990.
Gernsbacher, M. A.,&Givón, T. Coherence in Spontaneous Text [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1995.
Glenn, C., Lyday, M.&Sharer, W. Rhetorical Education in America [M]. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press,2004.
Glenn, C.,&Martin, C. Rhetoric as Pedagogy [A]. In A, Lunsford&K, Wilson (ed.),The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies [C]. California: Sage Publications Inc,2008:285-292.
Goldberg, A. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language [M]. Stanford: CSLIPublications,1996.
Goodman, K. S. Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game [J]. Journal of theReading Specialist,1967,(6):126-135.
Goodman, K. S. Analysis of Oral Reading Muscues: Applied Psycholinguistics [J].Reading Research Quarterly,1969,(5):9-30.
Gough, P. B. One Second of Reading [A]. In J. F, Kavanaugh&I. G, Mattingly (eds.),Language by Eye and Ear [C]. Cambridge: MIT Press,1972:331-358.
Gowler, B. D. Social-Rhetorical Interpretation: Textures of a Text and its Reception[J]. Journal for the Study of the New Testament,2010,(33):191-206.
Grabe, W. Current Development in Second Language Reading Research [J]. TESOLQuarterly,1991,(3):375-406.
Grabe, W. Reassessing the term “interactive”[A]. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine&D.E.Eskey (eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading [C]. Beijing:World Publishing Corporation,1996:56-70.
Graddol, D. Describing Language [M]. Buchingham: The Open University Press,1994.
Graesser, A.C., Singer M.,&Trabasso T. Contructing Inferences during NarrativeText Comprehension [J]. Psychological Review,1994,(101):371-395.
Haase, Fee-Alexandra. Forms Visualizing Communication. Notes Regarding theParallels of Argumentation between Rhetoric and Geometry as BasicCommunication Tools. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098410,2008.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.)[M]. London:Arnold,1994.
Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation ofLanguage and Meaning [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,2001.
Halliday, M. A. K.&Hasan, R. Language, Context and Text: aspects of language in asocial-semiotic perspective [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press,1985.
Haskins, E. Choosing Between Isocrates and Aristotle: Disciplinary Assumptions andPedagogical Implications [J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,2006,(36):191-201.
Hatch, E. Discourse and Language Education [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1992.
Hatim B.,&Mason I. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2001.
Hauser, A. G. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory [M]. New York: Harper&RowPublishers,1986.
Hauser, A. G. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory (2nd)[M]. Prospect Heights:Waveland Press, Inc.,2002.
Herrick, A. J. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction [M]. Boston:Pearson Education,2005.
Hochmuth, M. Kenneth Burke and the “new rhetoric”[J]. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech,1952,(2):133-144.
Hoek, K. V., Kibrik, A. A.,&Noordman, L. Discourse Studies in Cognitive Studies[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1999.
Holtgraves, T. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use [M].New Jersey: Psychology Press,2002.
Hyland, K. Metadiscourse [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,2008.
Jakobson R. Selected Writings Volume II [M]. Rudy, S.(ed.), The Hague: Mouton,1971.
Jasinski, J. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts on Contemporary RhetoricalStudies [M]. London: Sage Publications,2001.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language,Inference and Consciousness [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Johnson, S. On New Systems of Rhetoric [J], Philosophy and Rhetoric,1996,(29):75-83.
Karen, B. L. Invention as a Social Act [M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress,1987.
Keith, G. D. Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents [J]. Rhetoric Review,1997,(2):264-279.
Kennedy, G. A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition fromAncient to Modern Times [M]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,1980.
Kintsch, W. The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: AConstruction-integration Model [J]. Psychology Review,1988,(2):163-182.
Kintsch, W. Comprehension-based Approach to Language and Understanding [J]. ThePsychology of Learning and Motivation,1993,(30):165-213.
Kintsch, W.,&van Dijk, T. A. Towards a Model of Text Comprehension andProduction [J]. Psychological Review,1978,(5):363-394.
Kress, G. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1989.
Laclau, E. Ideology and Post-Marxism [J]. Journal of Political Ideologies,2006,(2):103-114.
Langacker, R. W. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,2001,(2):143-188.
Lanser, S. The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction [M]. Princeton: PrincetonUiversity Press,1981.
Lee, R. Ideographic Criticism [A]. In A. J. Kuypers (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism:Perspectives in Action [C]. Plymouth: Lexington Books,2009:285-319.
Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman,1983.
Logan, W. S. To Get an Education and Teach My People: Rhetoric for Social Change[A]. In. C. Glenn, M. Lyday&W. Sharer (eds.), Rhetorical Education inAmerica [C]. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,2004:36-52.
Luke, A.,&Freebody, P. Teaching Reading as a Critical Social Practice [A]. In S.McConnel&A. Treloar (ed.), Voices of Experiece: Positioning on LiteracyTheories and Practices [C]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia,1993:16-27.
Luke, A. The Social Practice of Reading [A]. In J. Murray (ed.), CelebratingDifference: Confronting Literacies [C]. Sydney: Australian Reading Association,1995,167-187.
Lundberg, O. C. Letting Rhetoric Be: On Rhetoric and Rhetoricity [J]. Philosophyand Rhetoric,2013,(2):247-255.
Lunsford, A. A., Wilson, K. H.,&Eberly W. R. The Sage Handbook of RhetoricalStudies [M]. California: Sage,2009.
Malinowski, B. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language [A] In C.K. Ogden&I. A.Richards (eds.), The Meaning of Meaning [C]. New York: Hartcourt Brace,1923:451-510.
McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1991.
McCarthy, M.,&Carter R. Language as Discourse Perspectives for LanguageTeaching [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2004.
McDonough, J.,&Shaw, C. Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide [M].Oxford: Blackwell,1993.
McKerrow. R. E. Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis [J]. CommunicationMonographs,1989,(56):91-111.
McKoon, G.,&Ratcliff, R. Inference during Reading [J]. Psychological Review,1992,(99):440-466.
McRae, J. Five Skills English [A]. In G. Hu&L. Cao (eds.), Proceedings of the’98International Conference on Teaching English at Tertiary Level in the ChineseContext [C]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press,2000:137-149.
Miller, T. P. How Rhetorical are English and Communications Majors?[J] RhetoricSociety Quartely,2004,(35):91-113.
Moran, M. G.,&Ballif, M. Twentieth-Century Rheotrics and Rhetoricians [M].Westport: Greenwood Press,2000.
Muckelbauer J. Intensifying Philosophy and Rhetoric [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,2002,(3):175-184.
Murtagh, L. Reading in a Second or Foreign Language: Models, Processes, andPedagogy [J]. Language, Culture and Curriculum,1989,(2):91-105.
Nelson, K. Cognitive Structure: A Component of Cognitive Context [J].Psychological Inquiry,1991,(2):199-201.
Nunan, D. Introducing Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Penguin,1993.
Nuttall, C. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language [M]. Oxford: Heinemann,1996.
Nystrand, M. The Stureture of Written Communication: Studies in Reciprocity betweenWriters and Readers [M]. Orlando: Academic Press,1986.
Perelman, CH.,&L.Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: a Treatise onArgumentation [M]. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1969.
Petraglia, J.,&Bahri, D. The Realms of Rhetoric: The Prospects for RhetoricEducation [M]. Albany: State University of New York Press,2003.
Poole, D. Discourse Analysis and Appied Linguisitics [A]. In R. Kaplan (eds.), TheOxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics [C]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,2002:73-86.
Porter. E. J. Audience [A]. In T. Enos (eds.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [C].New York: Routledge,1996:42-49.
Procter, P. Cambridge International Dictionary of English [Z]. London: CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.
Reid, S. The Practical Hall Guide for College Writers [M]. Boston: Prentice Hall,2011.
Renkema, J. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook [M]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,1993.
Renkema, J. Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Shanghai：Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2009.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1936.
Robbins, V. K. The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society andIdeology [M]. London: Routledge,1996.
Roen, D.,&Glau, R. The McGram-Hill Guide: Writing for College, Writing for Life[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill,2010.
Rumelhart, D. E. Toward an Interactive Model of Reading [A]. In S. Dornic (ed.),Attention&Performance (Volume VI)[C]. New York: Academic Press,1977:573-603.
Rumelhart, D. E.,&Ortony, A. The Representation of Knowledge in Memory [A]. InR.C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro,&W. E. Montague (eds.), Schooling and theAcquisition of Knowledge [C]. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1977:99-135.
Rumehart, D. E. Shemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition [A]. In R. J. Spiro (eds.),Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension [C]. Hillsdale: Erlbaum,1980:33-58.
Samuels, J. S.,&Kamil, L. M. Models of the Reading Process [A]. In P. Carrell, J.Devine&D. Eskey (ed.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading[C]. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation,2006:22-36.
Sanders, T. Psycholinguistics and the Discourse Level: Challenges for CognitiveLinguistics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1997,(8):243–265.
Schiappa, E.,&Hamm, J. Rhetorical Questions [A]. In I. Worthington (ed.), ACompanion to Greek Rhetoric [C]. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Ltd,2010:3-15.
Scholes, R. Protocols of Reading [M]. New York: Yale University Press,1989.
Schuster, C. Mikhail Bakhtin: Philosopher of Language [A]. In C, Sills&G, Jensen(ed.), The Philosophy of Discourse: The Rhetorical Turn in Twentieth-CenturyThought (Volume I)[C]. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers,1992:164-198.
Scott, R. L. On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic [J]. Central States Speech Journal,1967,(18):9-17.
Shannon, E. C. A Mathematical Theory of Communication [J]. Bell System TechnicalJournal,1948,(3):379-423.
Smith, F. Psycholinguistics and Reading [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1973.
Smith, F. Understanding Reading [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1978.
Snowling, M.,&Hulme, C. The Science of Reading: A Handbook [C]. Victoria:Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2005.
Sperber, D.,&Wilson. D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Stanovich, K. E. Towards an Interactive-compensatory Model of Individual Differecesin the Development of Reading Fluency [J]. Reading Research Quarterly,1980,(16):32-71.
Steinmann, M. New Rhetorics [M]. New York: Scribner’s,1967.
Stillar, G. Analyzing Everyday Texts: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Perspectives[M]. California: Sage Publications,1998.
Stubbs, M. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language [M].Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1983.
Stubbs, M. W. Text and Corpus Analysis [M]. Oxford: Blackwell,1996.
Summa, H. The Rhetoric of Efficiency: Applied Social Science as Depoliticization[A]. In H. B. Richard (ed.), Writing the Social Text: Poetics and Politics in SocialScience Discourse [C]. New York: Walter de Gruyter,1992:135-153.
Swaffar, J. K. Readers, Texts and Second Languages: The Interactive Processes [J].Modern Language Journal,1988,(2):123-149.
Twining, E. J. Reading and Thinking: A Process Approach [M]. California: HoltRinehart&Winston,1984.
Tyler, A. S. The Unspeakable: Discourse, Dialogue, and Rhetoric in the PostmodernWorld [M]. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press,1987.
VanderMey, R. The College Writer: A Writer to Thinking, Writing, and Researching[M]. Boston: Wadsworth,2009.
van Dijk.,&Kintsch, W. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension [M]. New York:Academic Press.
van Dijk. Discourse Studies and Hermeneutics [J]. Discourse Studies,2011,(13):609-621.
Vatz, R. The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1973,(3):154-160.
Verhoeven, L.,&Perfetti, C. Advances in text comprehension: Model, process anddevelopment [J]. Applied Congintive Psychology,2008,(3):293-301.
Walker, J. What a Difference a Definition Makes, or William Dean Howells and theSophist’s Shoes [J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,2006,(36):143-153.
Wallace, C. Reading [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1992.
Warnock, T. Kenneth Burke [A]. In T. Enos (eds.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [C],New York: Routledge,1996:90-92.
Weigand, E. Dialogue and Rhetoric [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,2008.
Widdowson, H. G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics [M]. Oxford: Oxford UniverityPress,1979.
Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext [M]. Oxford: Blackwell,2004.
Worthington, I. A Companion to Greek Rhetoric [C]. New Jersey: Wiley-BlackwellLtd,2010.
Young, R. Invention [A]. In T. Enos (eds.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [C],New York: Routledge,1996:349-355.
Young, R., Becker, A.,&Pike, K. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change [M]. New York:Harcourt, Brace&World,1970.
安利红.修辞意识在篇章建构中的作用[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(4):18-20.
巴赫金.《巴赫金全集》（第四卷）[M].钱中文主编,石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998.
蔡基刚.大学英语教学若干问题思考[J].外语教学与研究,2005,(2):83-91.
曹京渊,王绍梅.美国修辞情景研究及其后现代主义趋势[J].复旦学报（社会科学版）,2011,(2):79-84+101.
柴改英,任大玲.语篇的互动性研究[J].四川外国语学院学报,2003,(2):103-104.
柴改英,张翠梅.从修辞学定义管窥西方新修辞学的特点和发展动态[J].修辞学习,2007,(6):21-24.
柴改英,郦青.当代西方修辞批评研究[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2012.
常昌富.导论：当代修辞学批评模式概述[A].大卫·宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学：批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.1-23.
陈捷.修辞意识与二语写作思维能力的培养[J].《安徽工业大学学报》（社会科学版），2012,(4):80-81.
陈黎静,杨玉芳.语篇理解理论研究概述[J].心理科学,2010,(04):1010-1012.
陈平.话语分析与语义研究[J].当代修辞学,2012,(4):2-9.
陈汝东.论修辞的社会心理原则[J].北京大学学报（哲社版）,1997,(1):108-115.
陈小慰.翻译教学中修辞意识的培养[J].外语教学理论与实践,2012,(3):86-90.
陈治业.科技翻译过程中的修辞意识与方法[J].外语教学,1996,(3):43-47.
陈忠华,刘心全等.知识与语篇理解：话语分析认知科学方法论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
从莱庭,徐鲁亚.西方修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
邓志勇.伯克与亚里士多德：差异及‘血脉’关联—从修辞学的定义、功能和范畴来看[J].修辞学习,2009,(6):45-51.
邓志勇.修辞理论与修辞哲学：关于修辞学泰斗肯尼斯·伯克的研究[M].上海:学林出版社,2011.
董洪川.界面研究：外语学科研究的新增长点[J].外国语文,2012,(5):2-3.
董亚芬.我国英语教学应始终以读写为本[J].外语界,2003,(1):2-6.
董燕萍.心理语言学与外语教学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
范琳,周红等.二语语篇阅读推理的心理学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社，2011.
冯志国,于丹.维特根斯坦“语言游戏”的修辞哲学意蕴[J].东北大学学报（社会科学版）,2012,(6):555-560.
高辛勇.修辞学与文学阅读[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
顾曰国.伯克的“同一”理论—兼论汉英修辞学思想的差异[J].修辞学习,1989,(5):24-27.
顾曰国.西方古典修辞学与新修辞学[J].外语教学与研究,1990,(2):10-25.
桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
何兆熊,蒋艳梅.语境的动态研究[J].外国语,1997,(6):16-22.
胡健.语篇理解模型综述[J].合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(1):38-43.
胡曙中.西方修辞学传统之管窥[J].外国语,1992,(2):36-42.
胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
胡曙中.英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
胡曙中.现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
胡曙中.英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
胡曙中.西方修辞学:当今语言研究之理论渊源[J].外语电化教学,2008a,(4):47-53.
胡曙中.英汉修辞跨文化研究[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2008b.
胡曙中.西方新修辞学概论[M].湘潭:湘潭大学出版社,2009.
胡曙中.语篇语言学导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2012.
胡霞.认知语境研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2005.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
胡壮麟.语篇分析在教学中的应用[J].外语教学,2001,(1):3-10.
黄国文,徐珺.语篇分析与话语分析[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(10):1-6.
鞠玉梅.肯尼斯·伯克新修辞学理论述评——戏剧五位一体理论[J].外语学刊,2003,(4):73-78.
鞠玉梅.肯尼斯·伯克新修辞学理论述评：关于修辞的定义[J].四川外国语学院学报,2005,(1):72-76.
鞠玉梅.语篇分析的伯克新修辞模式[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2006.
鞠玉梅.修辞能力与外语专业创新人才培养[J].外语界,2008,(6):47-51.
鞠玉梅.通过“辞屏”概念透视伯克的语言哲学观[J].现代外语,2010,(1):39-45.
鞠玉梅.社会认知修辞学：理论与实践.[M]北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
鞠玉梅.伯克受众观的后现代性解析[J].中国外语,2013,(4):51-54.
蓝纯.修辞学：理论与实践[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2010.
蓝王海霞.古典儒学与西方修辞学[A].修辞学论文集[C].王德春,李月松主编.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006:3-11.
冷英,莫雷,贾德梅.当代西方语篇阅读信息加工理论模型的演进[J].心理科学,2004,(6):1482-1485.
李杰.从认知功能的角度看语篇分析[A].文旭,刘承宇主编.语言的多维研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2012.
李克.转喻的修辞批评研究[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2012.
李丽生.从阅读理论的发展看培养学生批评性阅读能力的重要性[J].四川外语学院学报,2003,(1):147-149.
李美霞.话语类型理论的延展与实践[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2010.
李鹏程,邹广文,罗红光等.当代西方文化研究新词典[Z].长春:吉林人民出版社,2003.
李鑫华.伯克新修辞学认同说初探[J].外语学刊,2001,(1):54-58.
李远方.国外阅读理论与我国英语阅读课教学[J].外语教学与研究,1993,(3):61-64.
刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
刘康. Bakhtin的文化转型理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
刘晓玲,阳志清.语篇理解过程及其心理机制[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(03):72-77.
刘新芳.修辞互动视角下的语篇类型共生关系研究[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2013.
刘亚猛.追求象征的力量：关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学经典文选-序[A].袁影编注.苏州:苏州大学出版社,2012.
陆振慧.语篇分析与英语写作教学[J].山东外语教学,2003,(4):96-99.
卢植.认知与语言:认知语言学引论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
鲁忠义,彭聃龄.语篇理解研究[M].北京:北京语言大学出版社,2003.
罗长田.论修辞教学在外语教学中的地位和作用[J].江西社会科学,2002,(4):189-191.
吕叔湘主编.现代汉语词典（增补本）[Z].北京：商务印书馆，2004.
潘文国.界面研究四论[J].中国外语,2012a,(3):109-111.
潘文国.界面研究的原则和意义[J].外国语文,2012b,(5):1-2.
钱冠连.语言哲学修辞论：一个猜想[J].福建师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2003,(6):20-24+26.
曲卫国.人文学科的修辞转向和修辞学的批判性转向[J].浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）,2008,(1):113-122.
任绍曾.语篇的多维分析[J].外国语,2003,(3):35-42.
阮永之.英语阅读理论模式初探[J].对外经济贸易大学学报.1993,(2):53-57.
史修永,周李帅.20世纪西方修辞美学关键词[M].谭善明、杨向荣主编.济南:齐鲁书社,2012.
孙汉军.论西方哲学对修辞学的影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2012,(6):25-28.
谭善明.修辞学研究的审美之维建构[J].湘潭大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2010,(2):94-97.
谭学纯.文学和语言：广义修辞学的学术空间[M].上海:上海三联书店,2008.
谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学（修订本）[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2008.
谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992.
涂纪亮.西方语言哲学研究的现状与前景[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(5):323-330.
涂家金.修辞的情境与情境的修辞[J].大连大学学报,2009,(5):79-82.
王笃勤.英语阅读教学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2012.
王家衡,刘英凯.试论本科英语专业教师加强修辞意识的必要性[J].外语与外语教学,2001,(11):14-15+43.
王建新.英语阅读理论模式概述[J].外语界,1991,(3):42-44.
王书亭,郭贵荣.研究生英语写作中的修辞意识培养[J].学位与研究生教育,2002,(2):53-57.
王寅.语义理论与外语教学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
王永祥,潘新宁.对话性：巴赫金超语言学的理论核心[J].当代修辞学,2012,(3):40-46.
王志伟.语篇修辞性探析[J].郑州航空工业管理学院学报（社会科学版）,2006,(1):83-85.
王志伟.当代西方修辞批评方法：多元性及其理据[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2013,(4):6-9+61.
魏在江.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
温科学.当代西方修辞学发展大势[J].楚雄师专学报,1999,(4):57-60.
温科学.西方修辞学的言语接受研究[J].修辞学习,2001,(3):1-2.
温科学.20世纪中西方修辞学的演进[J].广西大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2002,(4):80-85.
温科学.20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
武建国,庞人骐.论西方四大修辞学派的语篇建构观[J].外语研究,2002,(4):22-27.
席晓青.语篇分析：思维、策略与实践[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2011.
肖好章.意义与语境：交互语境模式构建[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(1):12-16.
熊沐清，陈意德.观念视点与叙述语篇理解研究[J].外语与外语教学,2000,(6):15-18.
熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
徐赳赳. van Dijk的话语观[J].外语教学与研究,2005,(5):358-361.
许力生.语言学研究的语境理论构建[J].浙江大学学报,2006,(4):158-164.
亚里士多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1991.
杨炳钧.试评心理语言学语篇理解理论研究[J].山东外语教学,1999,(3):12-15.
杨家勤.话语生产者角色及其转换背后的意识操纵[J].东北师大学报（哲学社会科学版）,2011,(1):135-138.
杨绍梁.界面研究：外语科研创新的一条途径[J].外国语文,2012,(1):143-144.
杨信彰.话语中的识解因素与语境[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(3):97-101.
姚喜明.阅读的修辞性研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2003.
姚喜明，潘攀.英语阅读理论研究的发展[J].外语教学,2004,(1):72-75.
姚喜明.西方修辞学简史[M].上海:上海大学出版社,2009a.
姚喜明,王惠敏. Bitzer的修辞情景观研究[J].西安外国语大学学报,2009b,(6):29-33.
原雪.二语/外语语境下的批评性阅读理论构建研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2010.
袁影,蒋严.论“修辞情境”的基本要素及核心成分——兼评比彻尔等“修辞情境”观[J].修辞学习,2009,(4):1-8.
袁影.修辞批评新模式构建研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2012.
曾祥芹,韩雪屏.国外阅读研究[M].郑州:大象出版社,2002.
张春泉.论接受心理与修辞表达[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007.
张后尘.准备、创新与开疆拓域[J].中国外语,2012,(2):90-104.
张俊凌.界面研究的方法、意义和发展[J].外国语文,2012,(3):158-160.
张迈曾.庐山真面——语篇的交互观[J].南开语言学刊,2002,(1):137-143.
张琦.图式论与语篇理解[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(12):18-21.
赵艳.结构主义语言学:诠释与批判[J].外语学刊,2007,(4):64-66.
赵毅.修辞接受论[M].济南:山东文艺出版社,2009.
周流溪.近五十年来语言学的发展[A].语言研究与语言教学[C].香港:华人出版社,2001.
周晓明.人类交流与传播[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1990.
朱永生,严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
朱永生,严世清.系统功能语言学再思考[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2011.
朱永生.语境动态研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
朱永新,朱小蔓.中国教育：情感缺失[J].读书,2012,(1):3-15.
宗廷虎.21世纪的汉语修辞学向何处发展[J].云梦学刊,1996,(2):68-72.
Anderson, R. C. Schema-directed Processes in Language Comprehension [A]. In A.M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino, S. D. Fokkema,&R. Glaser (eds.), CognitivePsychology and Instruction [C]. New York: Plenum Press,1978:67-82.
Anderson, N. Reading [A]. In D. Nunan (eds.), Practical English Language Teaching[C]. New York: McGraw-Hill,2003:67-86.
Aristotle. Rhetoric [M]. trans. W. R. Roberts. New York: Dover Publications, Inc,2004.
Asher, N.,&Lascarides, A. Logics of Conversation [M]. Beijing: Beijing UniversityPress,2010.
Ausubel, D. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View [M]. New York: HoltRhinehart&Winston,1968.
Bakhtin, M. The Dialogue Imagination [M]. trans. C. Emerson&M. Holquist. Austin:University of Texas,1981.
Bakhtin, M. The Problem of Speech Genres [A]. trans. M. Holquist, C. Emerson,&V.McGee. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [M]. Austin: University of Texas,1986.
Bakhtin, M.,&Voloshinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language [M].trans. L. Matejka&I. Titunik, Cambridge: Harvard University,1986.
Barnett, M. A. More than Meets the Eye: Foreign Language Reading: Theory andPractice [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents,1989.
Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1932.
Barton, E.,&Stygall, G. Discourse Studies in Composition [M]. New Jersey:Hampton Press Inc,2002.
Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J.,&Tindal, G. Examining the Structure ofReading Comprehension: do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehensiontruly exist?[J]. Read Writ,2013,(26):349-379.
Bazerman, C. Shaping Written knowledge: The Genre and activity of the experimentalarticle in Science [M]. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,1988.
Bean, C., Chappell A.,&Gillam, M. A. Reading Rhetorically [M]. New York:Pearson Education, Inc,2007.
Beaugrande, D. Text, Discourse and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science ofTexts [M]. New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Corporation,1980.
Beaugrande, D.,&Dressler, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London:Longman,1981.
Benoit, L. W.,&Smythe, J. M. Rhetorical Theory as Message Reception: A CognitiveResponse Approach to Rhetorical Theory and Criticism [J]. CommunicationStudies,2003,(1):96-114.
Benson, W. T. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism [M]. California: HermagorasPress,1993.
Bitzer, L. The Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1968,(1):1-14.
Bizzell, P.,&Herzberg, B. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Timesto the Present [M]. Boston: St. Martin’s Press,1990.
Booth, W. The Rhetoric of RHETORIC [M]. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub,2004.
Borchers, A. T. Persuasion in the Media Age [M]. New York: Mcgraw-Hill,2005.
Borchers, A. T. Rhetorical Theory: An Introduction [M]. Long Grove: Waveland PressInc.,2011.
Brent, D. Reading as Rhetorical Invention: Knowledge, Persuasion, and the Teachingof Research-Based Writing [D]. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English,1992.
Brown, G. Language and Understanding [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994.
Brown, G.,&Yule, G. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1983.
Browne, H. S. Close Textual Analysis: Approaches and Applications [A]. In A. J.Kuypers (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action [C]. Plymouth:Lexington Books,2009:63-76.
Brummett, B. Some Implications of “Process” or “Intersubjectivity”: PostmodernRhetoric [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1976,(9):21-51.
Bryant, D. C. Rhetoric: Its Function and its Scope [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1953,(39):401-424.
Burke, K. Rhetoric—Old and New [J]. Journal of General Education,1951,(5):203-205.
Burke, K. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method [M].Berkeley: University of California Press,1966.
Burke, K. A Rhetoric of Motives [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1969a.
Burke, K. A Grammar of Motives.[M] Berkeley: University of California Press,1969b.
Burke, K. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1973a.
Burke, K. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. In L. Thayer (ed.), Communication: Ethicaland Moral Issues [C]. New York: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers,1973b:263-275.
Burke, K. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1984.
Carleton, W. A. What is Rhetorical Knowledge? A Response to Farrell—and more [J].Quarterly Journal of Speech,1978,(1):313-328.
Carrell, P., Devine, J.,&Eskey, D. Interactive Approaches to Second LanguageReading [M]. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation,2006.
Chafe, W. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Follow and Displacement ofConscious Experience in Speaking and Writing [M]. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press,1994.
Coady, J. A Psycholinguistic Model of the ESL Reader [A]. In R. MacKay, B.Barkman&R. R. Jordan (ed.), Reading in a Second Language: Hypothesis,Organization and Practice [C], Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1979:5-12.
Coates, J. The Negotiation of Coherence in Face-to-face Interaction: Some Examplesfrom Extreme Bounds [A]. In M. A. Gernsbacher&T. Givón (eds.), Coherencein Spontaneous Text [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1995.
Consigny, S. Rhetoric and Its Situations [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1974,(7):172-182.
Cook, G. Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1989.
Cook, P. The Rhetoricity of Cultural Literacy [J]. Pedagogy,2009,(3):487-500.
Corbett, E. P. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1999.
Coulthard, M. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Routledge,1992.
Coulthard, M. Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London: Routledge,1994.
Crandall, J. The Why, What, and How of ESL Reading Instruction: Some Guidelinesfor Writers of ESL Reading Textbooks [A]. In P. Byrd (ed.), Material Writer’sGuide [C]. Boston: Heinle&Heinle Publishers,1995:79-94.
Day, D. Persuasion and the Concepts of Identification [J]. The Quaterly Journal ofSpeech,1960,(3):270-273.
Denman, W. N. Rhetoric, the “citizen-orator”, and the revitalization of civic discoursein American life [A]. In C. Glenn, M. Lyday,&W. Sharer (eds.), RhetoricalEducation in America [C]. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,2004:3-17.
Eberly, R. Citizen Critics: Literary Public Spheres [M]. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress,2000.
Eberly, R. Rhetoric and the anti-logos doughball: Teaching Deliberating Bodies thePractices of participatory Democracy [J]. Rhetoric and Public Affairs,2002,(5):287-300.
Edwards, R.,&Nicoll, K. Researching the Rhetoric of Lifelong Learning [J]. Journalof Education Policy,2001,(2):103-112.
Ehninger, D. On Systems of Rhetoric [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1968,(3):131-144.
Ehninger, D. Comtemporary Rhetoric: A Reader’s Coursebook [M]. Glenview: Scott,Foresman&Company,1982.
Enos, T. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Compostion: Communication from AncientTimes to the Information Age [C]. New York: Garland,1996.
Eskey, D. E. Holding in the bottom: an interactive approach to the language problemsof second language readers [A]. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine,&E. David (eds.),Interactive Approaches to Seocond Language Reading [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge Univerisity Press,1988:93-100.
Fahnestock, J.,&Secor, M. Rhetorical Analysis [A]. In L. E, Barton&G, Stygall(eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition [C]. New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc,2002:177-200.
Farmer, F. Landmark Essays on Bakhtin, Rhetoric and Writing [C]. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,1998.
Farrell, K.,&Young, M. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. In A. J, Kuypers (ed.),Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action [C]. Plymouth: Lexington Books,2009:33-37.
Farrell, T. B. From the Parthenon to the Bassinet: Death and Rebirth along theEpistemic Trail [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1990,(9):78-84.
Firth, J. R. A Synopsis of Linguistic theory,1930-1955[J]. In Studies in LinguisticAnalysis (Special issue.), Philological Society of London,1957:1-32.
Fogarty, D. J. Roots for a new rhetoric [M]. New York: Bureau of Publications,1959.
Foss, S. K. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric [M]. Long Grove: WavelandPress, Inc.,1985.
Foss, S. K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration&Practice [M]. Long Grove: WavelandPress, Inc.,2004/2009.
Freedle, R. O. New Directions in Discourse Processing (Volume II)[M]. New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation,1979.
Gaonkar, P. D. The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science [A]. In G, Gross&W,Keith (ed.), Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age ofScience [C]. Albany: State University of New York Press,1997:25-88.
Geisser, H. On Rhetoricity and Literarity [J]. Communication Education,1983,(3):275-284.
Gernsbacher, M. A. Language Comprehension as Structure Building [M]. New Jersey:Erlbaum,1990.
Gernsbacher, M. A.,&Givón, T. Coherence in Spontaneous Text [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1995.
Glenn, C., Lyday, M.&Sharer, W. Rhetorical Education in America [M]. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press,2004.
Glenn, C.,&Martin, C. Rhetoric as Pedagogy [A]. In A, Lunsford&K, Wilson (ed.),The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies [C]. California: Sage Publications Inc,2008:285-292.
Goldberg, A. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language [M]. Stanford: CSLIPublications,1996.
Goodman, K. S. Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game [J]. Journal of theReading Specialist,1967,(6):126-135.
Goodman, K. S. Analysis of Oral Reading Muscues: Applied Psycholinguistics [J].Reading Research Quarterly,1969,(5):9-30.
Gough, P. B. One Second of Reading [A]. In J. F, Kavanaugh&I. G, Mattingly (eds.),Language by Eye and Ear [C]. Cambridge: MIT Press,1972:331-358.
Gowler, B. D. Social-Rhetorical Interpretation: Textures of a Text and its Reception[J]. Journal for the Study of the New Testament,2010,(33):191-206.
Grabe, W. Current Development in Second Language Reading Research [J]. TESOLQuarterly,1991,(3):375-406.
Grabe, W. Reassessing the term “interactive”[A]. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine&D.E.Eskey (eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading [C]. Beijing:World Publishing Corporation,1996:56-70.
Graddol, D. Describing Language [M]. Buchingham: The Open University Press,1994.
Graesser, A.C., Singer M.,&Trabasso T. Contructing Inferences during NarrativeText Comprehension [J]. Psychological Review,1994,(101):371-395.
Haase, Fee-Alexandra. Forms Visualizing Communication. Notes Regarding theParallels of Argumentation between Rhetoric and Geometry as BasicCommunication Tools. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098410,2008.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.)[M]. London:Arnold,1994.
Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation ofLanguage and Meaning [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,2001.
Halliday, M. A. K.&Hasan, R. Language, Context and Text: aspects of language in asocial-semiotic perspective [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press,1985.
Haskins, E. Choosing Between Isocrates and Aristotle: Disciplinary Assumptions andPedagogical Implications [J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,2006,(36):191-201.
Hatch, E. Discourse and Language Education [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1992.
Hatim B.,&Mason I. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2001.
Hauser, A. G. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory [M]. New York: Harper&RowPublishers,1986.
Hauser, A. G. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory (2nd)[M]. Prospect Heights:Waveland Press, Inc.,2002.
Herrick, A. J. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction [M]. Boston:Pearson Education,2005.
Hochmuth, M. Kenneth Burke and the “new rhetoric”[J]. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech,1952,(2):133-144.
Hoek, K. V., Kibrik, A. A.,&Noordman, L. Discourse Studies in Cognitive Studies[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1999.
Holtgraves, T. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use [M].New Jersey: Psychology Press,2002.
Hyland, K. Metadiscourse [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,2008.
Jakobson R. Selected Writings Volume II [M]. Rudy, S.(ed.), The Hague: Mouton,1971.
Jasinski, J. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts on Contemporary RhetoricalStudies [M]. London: Sage Publications,2001.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language,Inference and Consciousness [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Johnson, S. On New Systems of Rhetoric [J], Philosophy and Rhetoric,1996,(29):75-83.
Karen, B. L. Invention as a Social Act [M]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress,1987.
Keith, G. D. Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents [J]. Rhetoric Review,1997,(2):264-279.
Kennedy, G. A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition fromAncient to Modern Times [M]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,1980.
Kintsch, W. The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: AConstruction-integration Model [J]. Psychology Review,1988,(2):163-182.
Kintsch, W. Comprehension-based Approach to Language and Understanding [J]. ThePsychology of Learning and Motivation,1993,(30):165-213.
Kintsch, W.,&van Dijk, T. A. Towards a Model of Text Comprehension andProduction [J]. Psychological Review,1978,(5):363-394.
Kress, G. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1989.
Laclau, E. Ideology and Post-Marxism [J]. Journal of Political Ideologies,2006,(2):103-114.
Langacker, R. W. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,2001,(2):143-188.
Lanser, S. The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction [M]. Princeton: PrincetonUiversity Press,1981.
Lee, R. Ideographic Criticism [A]. In A. J. Kuypers (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism:Perspectives in Action [C]. Plymouth: Lexington Books,2009:285-319.
Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman,1983.
Logan, W. S. To Get an Education and Teach My People: Rhetoric for Social Change[A]. In. C. Glenn, M. Lyday&W. Sharer (eds.), Rhetorical Education inAmerica [C]. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,2004:36-52.
Luke, A.,&Freebody, P. Teaching Reading as a Critical Social Practice [A]. In S.McConnel&A. Treloar (ed.), Voices of Experiece: Positioning on LiteracyTheories and Practices [C]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia,1993:16-27.
Luke, A. The Social Practice of Reading [A]. In J. Murray (ed.), CelebratingDifference: Confronting Literacies [C]. Sydney: Australian Reading Association,1995,167-187.
Lundberg, O. C. Letting Rhetoric Be: On Rhetoric and Rhetoricity [J]. Philosophyand Rhetoric,2013,(2):247-255.
Lunsford, A. A., Wilson, K. H.,&Eberly W. R. The Sage Handbook of RhetoricalStudies [M]. California: Sage,2009.
Malinowski, B. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language [A] In C.K. Ogden&I. A.Richards (eds.), The Meaning of Meaning [C]. New York: Hartcourt Brace,1923:451-510.
McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1991.
McCarthy, M.,&Carter R. Language as Discourse Perspectives for LanguageTeaching [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2004.
McDonough, J.,&Shaw, C. Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide [M].Oxford: Blackwell,1993.
McKerrow. R. E. Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis [J]. CommunicationMonographs,1989,(56):91-111.
McKoon, G.,&Ratcliff, R. Inference during Reading [J]. Psychological Review,1992,(99):440-466.
McRae, J. Five Skills English [A]. In G. Hu&L. Cao (eds.), Proceedings of the’98International Conference on Teaching English at Tertiary Level in the ChineseContext [C]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press,2000:137-149.
Miller, T. P. How Rhetorical are English and Communications Majors?[J] RhetoricSociety Quartely,2004,(35):91-113.
Moran, M. G.,&Ballif, M. Twentieth-Century Rheotrics and Rhetoricians [M].Westport: Greenwood Press,2000.
Muckelbauer J. Intensifying Philosophy and Rhetoric [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,2002,(3):175-184.
Murtagh, L. Reading in a Second or Foreign Language: Models, Processes, andPedagogy [J]. Language, Culture and Curriculum,1989,(2):91-105.
Nelson, K. Cognitive Structure: A Component of Cognitive Context [J].Psychological Inquiry,1991,(2):199-201.
Nunan, D. Introducing Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Penguin,1993.
Nuttall, C. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language [M]. Oxford: Heinemann,1996.
Nystrand, M. The Stureture of Written Communication: Studies in Reciprocity betweenWriters and Readers [M]. Orlando: Academic Press,1986.
Perelman, CH.,&L.Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: a Treatise onArgumentation [M]. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1969.
Petraglia, J.,&Bahri, D. The Realms of Rhetoric: The Prospects for RhetoricEducation [M]. Albany: State University of New York Press,2003.
Poole, D. Discourse Analysis and Appied Linguisitics [A]. In R. Kaplan (eds.), TheOxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics [C]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,2002:73-86.
Porter. E. J. Audience [A]. In T. Enos (eds.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [C].New York: Routledge,1996:42-49.
Procter, P. Cambridge International Dictionary of English [Z]. London: CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.
Reid, S. The Practical Hall Guide for College Writers [M]. Boston: Prentice Hall,2011.
Renkema, J. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook [M]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,1993.
Renkema, J. Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Shanghai：Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2009.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1936.
Robbins, V. K. The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society andIdeology [M]. London: Routledge,1996.
Roen, D.,&Glau, R. The McGram-Hill Guide: Writing for College, Writing for Life[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill,2010.
Rumelhart, D. E. Toward an Interactive Model of Reading [A]. In S. Dornic (ed.),Attention&Performance (Volume VI)[C]. New York: Academic Press,1977:573-603.
Rumelhart, D. E.,&Ortony, A. The Representation of Knowledge in Memory [A]. InR.C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro,&W. E. Montague (eds.), Schooling and theAcquisition of Knowledge [C]. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1977:99-135.
Rumehart, D. E. Shemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition [A]. In R. J. Spiro (eds.),Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension [C]. Hillsdale: Erlbaum,1980:33-58.
Samuels, J. S.,&Kamil, L. M. Models of the Reading Process [A]. In P. Carrell, J.Devine&D. Eskey (ed.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading[C]. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation,2006:22-36.
Sanders, T. Psycholinguistics and the Discourse Level: Challenges for CognitiveLinguistics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1997,(8):243–265.
Schiappa, E.,&Hamm, J. Rhetorical Questions [A]. In I. Worthington (ed.), ACompanion to Greek Rhetoric [C]. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Ltd,2010:3-15.
Scholes, R. Protocols of Reading [M]. New York: Yale University Press,1989.
Schuster, C. Mikhail Bakhtin: Philosopher of Language [A]. In C, Sills&G, Jensen(ed.), The Philosophy of Discourse: The Rhetorical Turn in Twentieth-CenturyThought (Volume I)[C]. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers,1992:164-198.
Scott, R. L. On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic [J]. Central States Speech Journal,1967,(18):9-17.
Shannon, E. C. A Mathematical Theory of Communication [J]. Bell System TechnicalJournal,1948,(3):379-423.
Smith, F. Psycholinguistics and Reading [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1973.
Smith, F. Understanding Reading [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1978.
Snowling, M.,&Hulme, C. The Science of Reading: A Handbook [C]. Victoria:Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2005.
Sperber, D.,&Wilson. D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Stanovich, K. E. Towards an Interactive-compensatory Model of Individual Differecesin the Development of Reading Fluency [J]. Reading Research Quarterly,1980,(16):32-71.
Steinmann, M. New Rhetorics [M]. New York: Scribner’s,1967.
Stillar, G. Analyzing Everyday Texts: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Perspectives[M]. California: Sage Publications,1998.
Stubbs, M. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language [M].Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1983.
Stubbs, M. W. Text and Corpus Analysis [M]. Oxford: Blackwell,1996.
Summa, H. The Rhetoric of Efficiency: Applied Social Science as Depoliticization[A]. In H. B. Richard (ed.), Writing the Social Text: Poetics and Politics in SocialScience Discourse [C]. New York: Walter de Gruyter,1992:135-153.
Swaffar, J. K. Readers, Texts and Second Languages: The Interactive Processes [J].Modern Language Journal,1988,(2):123-149.
Twining, E. J. Reading and Thinking: A Process Approach [M]. California: HoltRinehart&Winston,1984.
Tyler, A. S. The Unspeakable: Discourse, Dialogue, and Rhetoric in the PostmodernWorld [M]. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press,1987.
VanderMey, R. The College Writer: A Writer to Thinking, Writing, and Researching[M]. Boston: Wadsworth,2009.
van Dijk.,&Kintsch, W. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension [M]. New York:Academic Press.
van Dijk. Discourse Studies and Hermeneutics [J]. Discourse Studies,2011,(13):609-621.
Vatz, R. The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation [J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric,1973,(3):154-160.
Verhoeven, L.,&Perfetti, C. Advances in text comprehension: Model, process anddevelopment [J]. Applied Congintive Psychology,2008,(3):293-301.
Walker, J. What a Difference a Definition Makes, or William Dean Howells and theSophist’s Shoes [J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,2006,(36):143-153.
Wallace, C. Reading [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1992.
Warnock, T. Kenneth Burke [A]. In T. Enos (eds.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [C],New York: Routledge,1996:90-92.
Weigand, E. Dialogue and Rhetoric [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,2008.
Widdowson, H. G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics [M]. Oxford: Oxford UniverityPress,1979.
Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext [M]. Oxford: Blackwell,2004.
Worthington, I. A Companion to Greek Rhetoric [C]. New Jersey: Wiley-BlackwellLtd,2010.
Young, R. Invention [A]. In T. Enos (eds.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric andComposition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age [C],New York: Routledge,1996:349-355.
Young, R., Becker, A.,&Pike, K. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change [M]. New York:Harcourt, Brace&World,1970.
安利红.修辞意识在篇章建构中的作用[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(4):18-20.
巴赫金.《巴赫金全集》（第四卷）[M].钱中文主编,石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998.
蔡基刚.大学英语教学若干问题思考[J].外语教学与研究,2005,(2):83-91.
曹京渊,王绍梅.美国修辞情景研究及其后现代主义趋势[J].复旦学报（社会科学版）,2011,(2):79-84+101.
柴改英,任大玲.语篇的互动性研究[J].四川外国语学院学报,2003,(2):103-104.
柴改英,张翠梅.从修辞学定义管窥西方新修辞学的特点和发展动态[J].修辞学习,2007,(6):21-24.
柴改英,郦青.当代西方修辞批评研究[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2012.
常昌富.导论：当代修辞学批评模式概述[A].大卫·宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学：批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.1-23.
陈捷.修辞意识与二语写作思维能力的培养[J].《安徽工业大学学报》（社会科学版），2012,(4):80-81.
陈黎静,杨玉芳.语篇理解理论研究概述[J].心理科学,2010,(04):1010-1012.
陈平.话语分析与语义研究[J].当代修辞学,2012,(4):2-9.
陈汝东.论修辞的社会心理原则[J].北京大学学报（哲社版）,1997,(1):108-115.
陈小慰.翻译教学中修辞意识的培养[J].外语教学理论与实践,2012,(3):86-90.
陈治业.科技翻译过程中的修辞意识与方法[J].外语教学,1996,(3):43-47.
陈忠华,刘心全等.知识与语篇理解：话语分析认知科学方法论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
从莱庭,徐鲁亚.西方修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
邓志勇.伯克与亚里士多德：差异及‘血脉’关联—从修辞学的定义、功能和范畴来看[J].修辞学习,2009,(6):45-51.
邓志勇.修辞理论与修辞哲学：关于修辞学泰斗肯尼斯·伯克的研究[M].上海:学林出版社,2011.
董洪川.界面研究：外语学科研究的新增长点[J].外国语文,2012,(5):2-3.
董亚芬.我国英语教学应始终以读写为本[J].外语界,2003,(1):2-6.
董燕萍.心理语言学与外语教学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
范琳,周红等.二语语篇阅读推理的心理学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社，2011.
冯志国,于丹.维特根斯坦“语言游戏”的修辞哲学意蕴[J].东北大学学报（社会科学版）,2012,(6):555-560.
高辛勇.修辞学与文学阅读[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
顾曰国.伯克的“同一”理论—兼论汉英修辞学思想的差异[J].修辞学习,1989,(5):24-27.
顾曰国.西方古典修辞学与新修辞学[J].外语教学与研究,1990,(2):10-25.
桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
何兆熊,蒋艳梅.语境的动态研究[J].外国语,1997,(6):16-22.
胡健.语篇理解模型综述[J].合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(1):38-43.
胡曙中.西方修辞学传统之管窥[J].外国语,1992,(2):36-42.
胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
胡曙中.英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
胡曙中.现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
胡曙中.英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
胡曙中.西方修辞学:当今语言研究之理论渊源[J].外语电化教学,2008a,(4):47-53.
胡曙中.英汉修辞跨文化研究[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2008b.
胡曙中.西方新修辞学概论[M].湘潭:湘潭大学出版社,2009.
胡曙中.语篇语言学导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2012.
胡霞.认知语境研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2005.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
胡壮麟.语篇分析在教学中的应用[J].外语教学,2001,(1):3-10.
黄国文,徐珺.语篇分析与话语分析[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(10):1-6.
鞠玉梅.肯尼斯·伯克新修辞学理论述评——戏剧五位一体理论[J].外语学刊,2003,(4):73-78.
鞠玉梅.肯尼斯·伯克新修辞学理论述评：关于修辞的定义[J].四川外国语学院学报,2005,(1):72-76.
鞠玉梅.语篇分析的伯克新修辞模式[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2006.
鞠玉梅.修辞能力与外语专业创新人才培养[J].外语界,2008,(6):47-51.
鞠玉梅.通过“辞屏”概念透视伯克的语言哲学观[J].现代外语,2010,(1):39-45.
鞠玉梅.社会认知修辞学：理论与实践.[M]北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
鞠玉梅.伯克受众观的后现代性解析[J].中国外语,2013,(4):51-54.
蓝纯.修辞学：理论与实践[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2010.
蓝王海霞.古典儒学与西方修辞学[A].修辞学论文集[C].王德春,李月松主编.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006:3-11.
冷英,莫雷,贾德梅.当代西方语篇阅读信息加工理论模型的演进[J].心理科学,2004,(6):1482-1485.
李杰.从认知功能的角度看语篇分析[A].文旭,刘承宇主编.语言的多维研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2012.
李克.转喻的修辞批评研究[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2012.
李丽生.从阅读理论的发展看培养学生批评性阅读能力的重要性[J].四川外语学院学报,2003,(1):147-149.
李美霞.话语类型理论的延展与实践[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2010.
李鹏程,邹广文,罗红光等.当代西方文化研究新词典[Z].长春:吉林人民出版社,2003.
李鑫华.伯克新修辞学认同说初探[J].外语学刊,2001,(1):54-58.
李远方.国外阅读理论与我国英语阅读课教学[J].外语教学与研究,1993,(3):61-64.
刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
刘康. Bakhtin的文化转型理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
刘晓玲,阳志清.语篇理解过程及其心理机制[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(03):72-77.
刘新芳.修辞互动视角下的语篇类型共生关系研究[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2013.
刘亚猛.追求象征的力量：关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学经典文选-序[A].袁影编注.苏州:苏州大学出版社,2012.
陆振慧.语篇分析与英语写作教学[J].山东外语教学,2003,(4):96-99.
卢植.认知与语言:认知语言学引论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
鲁忠义,彭聃龄.语篇理解研究[M].北京:北京语言大学出版社,2003.
罗长田.论修辞教学在外语教学中的地位和作用[J].江西社会科学,2002,(4):189-191.
吕叔湘主编.现代汉语词典（增补本）[Z].北京：商务印书馆，2004.
潘文国.界面研究四论[J].中国外语,2012a,(3):109-111.
潘文国.界面研究的原则和意义[J].外国语文,2012b,(5):1-2.
钱冠连.语言哲学修辞论：一个猜想[J].福建师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2003,(6):20-24+26.
曲卫国.人文学科的修辞转向和修辞学的批判性转向[J].浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）,2008,(1):113-122.
任绍曾.语篇的多维分析[J].外国语,2003,(3):35-42.
阮永之.英语阅读理论模式初探[J].对外经济贸易大学学报.1993,(2):53-57.
史修永,周李帅.20世纪西方修辞美学关键词[M].谭善明、杨向荣主编.济南:齐鲁书社,2012.
孙汉军.论西方哲学对修辞学的影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2012,(6):25-28.
谭善明.修辞学研究的审美之维建构[J].湘潭大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2010,(2):94-97.
谭学纯.文学和语言：广义修辞学的学术空间[M].上海:上海三联书店,2008.
谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学（修订本）[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2008.
谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992.
涂纪亮.西方语言哲学研究的现状与前景[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(5):323-330.
涂家金.修辞的情境与情境的修辞[J].大连大学学报,2009,(5):79-82.
王笃勤.英语阅读教学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2012.
王家衡,刘英凯.试论本科英语专业教师加强修辞意识的必要性[J].外语与外语教学,2001,(11):14-15+43.
王建新.英语阅读理论模式概述[J].外语界,1991,(3):42-44.
王书亭,郭贵荣.研究生英语写作中的修辞意识培养[J].学位与研究生教育,2002,(2):53-57.
王寅.语义理论与外语教学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
王永祥,潘新宁.对话性：巴赫金超语言学的理论核心[J].当代修辞学,2012,(3):40-46.
王志伟.语篇修辞性探析[J].郑州航空工业管理学院学报（社会科学版）,2006,(1):83-85.
王志伟.当代西方修辞批评方法：多元性及其理据[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2013,(4):6-9+61.
魏在江.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
温科学.当代西方修辞学发展大势[J].楚雄师专学报,1999,(4):57-60.
温科学.西方修辞学的言语接受研究[J].修辞学习,2001,(3):1-2.
温科学.20世纪中西方修辞学的演进[J].广西大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2002,(4):80-85.
温科学.20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
武建国,庞人骐.论西方四大修辞学派的语篇建构观[J].外语研究,2002,(4):22-27.
席晓青.语篇分析：思维、策略与实践[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2011.
肖好章.意义与语境：交互语境模式构建[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(1):12-16.
熊沐清，陈意德.观念视点与叙述语篇理解研究[J].外语与外语教学,2000,(6):15-18.
熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
徐赳赳. van Dijk的话语观[J].外语教学与研究,2005,(5):358-361.
许力生.语言学研究的语境理论构建[J].浙江大学学报,2006,(4):158-164.
亚里士多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1991.
杨炳钧.试评心理语言学语篇理解理论研究[J].山东外语教学,1999,(3):12-15.
杨家勤.话语生产者角色及其转换背后的意识操纵[J].东北师大学报（哲学社会科学版）,2011,(1):135-138.
杨绍梁.界面研究：外语科研创新的一条途径[J].外国语文,2012,(1):143-144.
杨信彰.话语中的识解因素与语境[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(3):97-101.
姚喜明.阅读的修辞性研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2003.
姚喜明，潘攀.英语阅读理论研究的发展[J].外语教学,2004,(1):72-75.
姚喜明.西方修辞学简史[M].上海:上海大学出版社,2009a.
姚喜明,王惠敏. Bitzer的修辞情景观研究[J].西安外国语大学学报,2009b,(6):29-33.
原雪.二语/外语语境下的批评性阅读理论构建研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2010.
袁影,蒋严.论“修辞情境”的基本要素及核心成分——兼评比彻尔等“修辞情境”观[J].修辞学习,2009,(4):1-8.
袁影.修辞批评新模式构建研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2012.
曾祥芹,韩雪屏.国外阅读研究[M].郑州:大象出版社,2002.
张春泉.论接受心理与修辞表达[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007.
张后尘.准备、创新与开疆拓域[J].中国外语,2012,(2):90-104.
张俊凌.界面研究的方法、意义和发展[J].外国语文,2012,(3):158-160.
张迈曾.庐山真面——语篇的交互观[J].南开语言学刊,2002,(1):137-143.
张琦.图式论与语篇理解[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(12):18-21.
赵艳.结构主义语言学:诠释与批判[J].外语学刊,2007,(4):64-66.
赵毅.修辞接受论[M].济南:山东文艺出版社,2009.
周流溪.近五十年来语言学的发展[A].语言研究与语言教学[C].香港:华人出版社,2001.
周晓明.人类交流与传播[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1990.
朱永生,严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
朱永生,严世清.系统功能语言学再思考[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2011.
朱永生.语境动态研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
朱永新,朱小蔓.中国教育：情感缺失[J].读书,2012,(1):3-15.
宗廷虎.21世纪的汉语修辞学向何处发展[J].云梦学刊,1996,(2):68-72.