包装名词在语篇中的态度意义研究
|
摘要
本文拟对以thing,fact,idea,problem,result,way等为典型例子的抽象名词的态度意义进行较为系统的理论描述和实际调查;通过对这些抽象名词的认知、语义和信息特征的再认识,在理论上拓宽语篇实现态度意义的资源,通过将评价意义研究与语料库语言学研究方法相结合,在方法论上创新语言人际意义研究的路向。基于thing,fact,idea,problem,result,way等为典型例子的抽象名词的认知、语义和信息特征,本论文提出“包装名词”(packing noun)这一新概念。本文的一个基本假设是:包装名词对语篇态度意义的实现具有重要作用,其认知、语义和信息特征使包装名词不仅能在语篇中明示说话者的态度,而且还是暗示说话者态度的诸种策略的可选资源。这一假设的合理性将通过包装名词及其语篇共现成分的态度特征加以验证。
包装名词是语言具体使用中的常用词,因此,包装名词也是现代语言学领域中的研究热点之一。语料库调查显示,典型包装名词的单数形式,如thing,fact,idea,problem等,在语言使用中的频率显著高于普通名词(包装名词的复数形式,如things,facts,ideas,problem等不在论文研究对象的范围之内)。包装名词在语言实际使用中的高频特征使其在现代语言学研究中受到广泛关注。传统语法认为包装名词的所指既不可观察(unobservability),也不可量度(unmeasuability),因此,包装名词被归入抽象名词的范畴,其研究也主要集中在包装名词的语义内涵(intensional semantics)和句法角色(syntactic role)两个方面。哲学领域对包装名词的研究最早可追溯到柏拉图对形式(forms)和可知之物(sensibles)的区别,但时至今日,哲学家们仍在为抽象事物(abstract entity)是否存在而争论不休,包装名词在语言中存在的必要性也倍受争议。不过哲学领域内也不乏以“容器”逻辑(“container”logic)为理论基础的专门针对包装名词的语言哲学探讨。显而易见,无论是传统语法领域,还是哲学领域都未能对包装名词的人际方面给与足够的重视。相对而言,包装名词在系统功能语言学中得到了较为系统和深入的研究。系统功能语言学对包装名词的经验意义重构(reconstrue)功能和在语篇中的词汇衔接功能进行了卓有成效的研究。在人际功能方面,因经典的系统功能语言学主要以语法结构为取向,注重将言语交际过程中小句的语气,情态和对话性结构等方面的研究推向深入,对词汇层面的人际意义鲜有提及。自上世纪90年代中后期开始,系统功能语言学开始从词汇层面关注语言的人际功能。评价系统就是基于词汇层的人际意义研究框架。尽管马丁(Martin)和怀特(White)指出“实现人际意义的资源也包含一些隐喻性名物成分(metaphorical nominal),”但他们认为语篇实现态度意义的“标准”(canonical)资源是形容词成分(adjectivals),名物成分仅仅是态度意义在语篇中得以实现的间接手段之一。可见,包装名词作为名物成分,其人际意义同样未受到足够的重视。近三十发展起来的语料库语言学对包装名词表现出较为浓厚的研究兴趣;其中尤以辛克莱尔(Sinclair)、弗朗西斯(Francis)、彼博尔(Bibber)、迈尔伯格(Mahlberg)等人的一些研究的研究对象与包装名词最为接近;不过,语料库语言学对包装名词的研究主要集中在包装名词的句法模式方面;尽管迈尔伯格对20个概括名词(general nouns)的研究涉及包装名词的评价意义,但包装名词的评价意义不是其研究的主要对象。总起来讲,以往与包装名词相关的研究对包装名词的人际意义,特别是其作为语篇态度意义资源的潜势的研究不够充分。尽管如此,这些研究为包装名词的态度意义研究提供了坚实的基础。
包装名词是语言使用中包装现象和包装策略的集中体现之一。语言使用中的包装现象和策略有其广泛的经验基础。在生物世界,包装是众多物种得以生存和进化的必要策略;无论是单个细胞,还是由无数个细胞组成的生命体(包括人类),都无一不是包装现象的具体例证,同时也是包装策略践行者。在社会生活中,包装现象和包装策略也无处不在:为了产品的正常运输和销售,我们往往以不同方式和不同规格进行包装;各种社会及宗教团体,甚至在以信息科技为缩影的高科技领域,包装现象也广泛存在,包装策略也被广泛使用。在经验世界中,包装预设包装材料,包装内容以及两者间的包装关系。这种经验现象映射到语言结构中则表现为包装名词对语篇内容的包装以及包装名词与包装内容之间在经验上的等同关系(experiential identity)和语义上的共指关系(co-referentiality)。包装名词作为人类认知系统中为数不多的上义范畴(superordinate category),其高度概括的范畴性特征(categorical attribute)对基本层次范畴具有突现(highlighting)和收集(collecting)功能。如果某一包装名词具有表达态度意义的范畴性特征,那么,该包装名词就具有突现其在语篇中的相应包装内容的态度意义的功能,同时还在很大程度上决定何种语篇内容能被纳入其包装范围之内。从语义上讲,包装名词的典型特征是语义的“非具体性”(semantic unspecificity),但包装名词在语义非具体性并非其固有特性:如同经验世界中的包装现象和策略一样,包装名词是长期语言使用的产物,其语义非具体性是语言使用中名物化过程对一致式过程进行信息剔除的结果。包装名词产生于名物化过程,而名物化过程有着深刻的人际动因。从包装名词的信息特征看,名物化过程中的信息丢失并不意味着信息全失。一些包装名词经过名物化以后还保留了一定的人际信息,但这些人际信息主要是概括性极高的态度信息。也有一些包装名词在经过名物化以后不再包含任何人际信息。因此,根据态度信息的有无,我们可将包装名词划分为“有态度”包装名词(attitudinalpacking noun)和“无态度”包装名词(non-attitudinal packing noun),前者在语篇中往往被用于明示(inscribe)态度,而后者则往往是语篇态度引发(attitudinal invocation)诸种策略的可选资源。
对包装名词的态度特征进行科学和系统的描述必须满足两个先决条件,即研究对象的充分性和代表性以及研究方法和步骤的科学性和合理性。在具体使用中,包装名词将语篇内容表征为高度概括的经验类别,而包装名词的具体意义则主要依赖于包装内容:包装内容主要由小句及小句以上的结构成分予以编码。尽管如此,包装名词和包装内容之间在语篇的语义层上相互共指(co-referentiality),在语篇的经验世界中则表征同一事件或抽象关系。包装名词与被包装内容之间的语义共指性和经验等同性(experiential identity)在语篇中主要有5种词汇-语法编码模式,其中,N+be+cl(即包装名词+系动词be变体+补语从句(complement))对包装名词的预期最强,包装名词出现在N+be+cl词汇-语法模式中N位置上的可能性最大。利用N+be+cl这一词汇-语法模式的18个变体在英国国家语料库(BNC)中进行检索,共发现779个包装名词。但是,并不是所有这779个包装名词在N+be+cl词汇-语法模式中的频数都达到了显著水平,如game,intuition,illustration等的绝对频数仅为1。另一方面,这779个包装名词中也有相当数量的名词不是语言使用中的高频词。分析在N+be+cl模式中的低频词或实际语言使用中的非常用词的态度特征对从整体上把握包装名词的态度特征意义不大。为了保证对包装名词的态度意义的描述具有代表性,同时避免因不必要的分析太多而使分析工作难以实施,我们一方面排除在N+be+cl词汇-语法模式中的搭配力(collocability/collocational strength)的z值小于2的包装名词,另一方面,通过查阅《朗曼当代英语词典》(第四版),排除不属于3000个在语言使用最为频繁的包装名词。用以上两个条件筛选出来的90个包装名词一方面在N+be+cl中出现的频率具有显著意义,同时又是语言使用中的3000个最常用的词,满足对包装名词进行系统描述的充分形和代表性。基于包装名词态度信息的有无,包装名词被划分为“有态度”包装名词(14个)和“无态度”包装名词(76个)。包装名词的态度意义在语篇中的实现取决于语境,同时其语境成分的语篇韵(discourse prosody)又反过来“强化”(potentiate)和“赋予”(impute)包装名词态度意义。在包装词的语境成分中,左1搭配词(first leftcollocate)和包装名词的包装内容的语篇韵对包装名词的态度意义具有最显著的强化和赋予功能。因此观察包装名词的这两类语境成分,可以最大限度地帮助我们了解包装名词是否在语篇中实现态度意义。
对14个“有态度”包装名词的左1搭配词和包装内容的态度分析显示,“有态度”包装名词在语篇中具有态度功能,且可直接观察。“问题”(problem)包装名词在语篇中明示消极鉴赏(appreciation)意义,同时还引发消极评判(judgement)和情感(affect)意义;“焦虑”(anxiety)包装名词在语篇中明示消极情感意义,同时引发消极评判和鉴赏意义。而“优势”(advantage)包装名词则明示积极鉴赏意义,并引发积情感和评判意义。
“无态度”包装名词在语篇中实现的态度意义不具有“有态度”包装名词在语篇中所实现的态度意义的高度一致性,但是对76个“无态度”包装名词的左1搭配词和包装内容的观察发现,“无态度”包装名词在语篇中实现的态度意义可作如下总结,即,绝大部分“无态度”包装名词在语篇中并非不具备实现态度意义的功能:76个“无态度”包装名词中,75个包装名词具有引发消极或积极态度意义的功能。例如,事实(factual)包装名词中的fact,thing、原因(causal)包装名词中的outcome,consequence、情态(modal)包装名词中truth,reality等在语篇中主要(predominantly)引发消极态度,而局部(partitive)包装名词中的feature、命题(propositional)包装名词中的news,信仰(creditive)包装名词中的aim等在语篇中主要引发积极态度意义。作为方式(manner)包装名词中的成员,secret是唯一不在语篇中引发消极或积极态度意义的包装名词。必须指出的是,尽管一些“无态度”包装名词在语篇中不以引发消极或积极态度意义为其主要功能,它们却引起读者或听者对其所包装的事实或行为加以注意,并藉此引发读者或听者对其包装内容进行评价的功能。从态度意义在语篇中得以实现的可选策略看,这些“无态度”包装名词是态度提供(affording attitude)策略得以实现的重要资源。从这个意义上讲,没有任何一个“无态度”包装名词不是说话者/作者的态度意义在语篇中得以实现的可选资源。
我们对包装名词,包装名词在语篇中的词汇-语法模式,以及我们在BNC语料库中发现包装名词的过程,说明语言包装现象的存在;更重要的是,对包装名词在语篇中所实现的态度意义及其在实现态度意义的诸种策略中的作用的分析是语篇态度意义资源范围的理论拓展。从方法论上讲,以词汇-语法模式为语料库检索项,并发现包装名词的语料库方法有别于以往通过对个体词项的检索去发现单个词项的语言环境,这在一定程度上是语料库使用方法上的创新。Martin&White(2005:46)指出人际意义研究很难从语料库语语言学中获取证据;我们针对包装名词进行的基于语料库的态度分析在一定程度上表明,将语料库语言学的方法用于人际意义分析是可行的。本研究仅仅是利用语料库语言学方法研究包装名词态度意义的抛砖之作。要更深刻地了解包装名词的态度意义,我们还应对扩大包装名词态度研究的范围,并将包装名词态度意义的理解,包装名词态度意义的跨语言特征等纳入我们的研究范围之内。
The present study sets out to systematically investigate the attitudinal functions of a special group of abstract nouns,the typical examples of which are thing,fact,idea,problem, result and way,etc.Based on the analysis of the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics of abstract nouns typified by thing,fact,idea,problem,result and way,etc, the term "packing noun" is proposed in this dissertation.It is hoped that with the analysis of the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics of packing nouns,the scope of the resources for attitude realization in discourse can be theoretically broadened and that with the corpus linguistic methods introduced into the existent approach to evaluation function of language,the Interpersonal study of language can be methodologically innovated.The underlying hypothesis of the present study is that packing nouns play an important role in realizing attitude in discourse.It is argued that due to the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics,packing nouns can be used not only to explicitly express speakers' attitude(i.e.attitude inscription) in discourse,but also to implicitly invoke attitude in discourse(i.e.attitude invocation).The hypotheses of the attitudinal functions of packing nouns are checked in authentic corpus-derived data in terms of the attitudinal behaviors of packing nouns per se and the discourse elements co-occurring with them.
Packing nouns are highly frequent in actual use and thus very popular in the linguistic realm as research objects.Corpus investigation shows that singular forms of packing nouns (The plural forms of packing nouns such as things,facts,problems,results,etc.are not studied in the present study.) are significantly higher in frequency than ordinary nouns.The high frequency values of packing nouns in actual use have attracted considerable linguistic attention.In traditional-grammatical studies,packing nouns are abstract nouns the referents of which are unobservable and unmeasurable.The intensional semantic features and the unique syntactic roles of packing nouns have received most of the comments from traditional grammarians.In the philosophical realm,there exists a long-standing controversy over the existence of abstract entities in the world and hence the necessity of abstract nouns in language.However,quite a number of philosophical studies have taken packing nouns as their study objects,with the "container" logic being the prevalent underlying rationale. Clearly,neither of the two previous realms has taken the Interpersonal aspect of packing nouns as their central issue.Comparatively speaking,it is in Systemic Functional Linguistics(SFL hereafter) that packing nouns are studied in a systematic and in-depth fashion.Packing nouns are found to be functionally active in Experientially reconstruing human experiences and Textually in establishing the semantic unity(i.e.,lexical cohesion) in discourse.It must be pointed out,however,that the Interpersonal function of packing nouns has been more or less overlooked since packing nouns are individual lexical items that can not be glossed under the Hallidayan Interpersonal structures(e.g.,Mood structure and dialogical structure).In the lexically-based Interpersonal framework originating from SFL,i.e.the Appraisal system,adjectivals are taken as the canonical type of resources for attitude expression,whereas packing nouns are merely resources for indirect realization of attitude in discourse and are thus again peripheral.In the new trend of corpus linguistics started three decades ago,considerable research efforts have been invested in packing nouns. Admittedly,the scope of the research objects of corpus linguistic studies by Sinclair,Francis, Bibber and Mahlberg,etc.coincide more or less with that of packing nouns,but these studies are concentrated mainly on the syntactic patterns of a number of packing nouns (such as thing,way and problem,etc.).Though Mahlberg makes excursions into the evaluative functions of 20 "general nouns"(i.e.,time nouns,people nouns and world nouns), his major concern is not the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns,but the establishment of a textlinguistic framework for general nouns.What is common to all the previous studies is that they tend to overlook the Interpersonal aspect of packing nouns and thus few investigations have been systematically carried out with the purpose of examining packing nouns in terms of their status of attitude resources in discourse.However,the (traditional) grammatical,cognitive and semantic characteristics of packing nouns gained in previous studies are preciously helpful and illuminating for our understanding of the attitudinal status of packing nouns.
Packing nouns are one of the reflections of packing phenomenon and strategy in actual language use.Packing in actual language use is pervasively embodied in our world experience.In the biological world,packing is an evolutionary strategy guaranteeing the survival of all species(including mankind as biological being).In the social world,packing is indispensable for transporting and selling products;and packing also plays an important role in social and religious organizations,even in high-tech field the epitome of which is the information technology.Packing in our experiential world presupposes packing material, the packed content and the packing relation.This experiential phenomenon is mapped into discourse as language structures:packing nouns being the packing material,stretches of discourse being the packed content and the packing relation being experiential identity and co-referentiality between packing nouns and the packed content.Cognitively,as categories at the superordinate level,the highlighting and collecting functions of packing nouns enables packing nouns to Interpersonally shadow the entities within their scopes. Semantically,packing nouns are a special group of nominals with unique semantic unspecificity.The semantic unspecificity of packing nouns is unique in the sense that it is not inherent but generated in nominalization processes,which are not only processes of objective abstraction,but also processes Interpersonally motivated.In other words,there are packing nouns with highly general Interpersonal information retained;there are also packing nouns where the Interpersonal information is missing out through the nominalization process.According to the presence or absence of Interpersonal information, packing nouns are divided as "attitudinal" and "non-attitudinal",both types playing an important role in attitude realization in discourse:Attitudinal packing nouns are used to explicitly inscribe attitude in discourse while non-attitudinal packing nouns are resources for implicitly invoking attitude in discourse.
The theoretical reasoning based on the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics of packing nouns shows that packing nouns have the potential of realizing attitude in discourse.For a full vision of the status of packing nouns as attitude resources in discourse,however,the attitudinal behavior of packing noun in actual use must be invested. A systematic investigation of the attitudinal behaviors of packing nouns requires two premises,i.e.,the research objects optimally representative and research methodology and procedures scientifically reliable.For the identification of optimally representative packing nouns,the 18 variations of the pattern N+be+cl,which is the most promising patterns among the five lexico-grammatical patterns coding the semantic co-referentiality and experiential identity between packing nouns and their packed content,are concordanced in British National Corpus World Edition(hence BNC in this dissertation) and 779 nouns are found to be used for packing.However,not all the 779 packing nouns occurring in the pattern N+be+cl are optimal representatives of packing nouns.With two scales,i.e.,the collocability(collocational strength) in the packing pattern N+be+cl being over 2 and the frequency within the range of the top 3000 most frequent words in actual use(cf.Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,4th Edition;hence LDOCE4 in this dissertation),90 optimally representative packing nouns are identified and divided according the presence or absence of attitudinal information(viz.,the 14 "attitudinal" packing nouns and 76 "non-attitudinal" packing nouns).The scientific and reliable analysis of the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns presupposes the right approach and the most revealing parameters.Arguably,to fully understand the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns in discourse,the corpus-driven and corpus-based approaches are combined,and the 1Ls(i.e., the first left collocates of packing nouns) and the packed content are the contextual elements most revealing of the discourse prosody of packing nouns.The attitudinal features of the 1Ls and the content of packing nouns are both statistically calculable in terms of their frequencies.
The investigation of 14 attitudinal packing nouns shows that "problem" nouns(i.e., problem,trouble,difficulty,mistake and danger) inscribe negative appreciation and thus invoke negative judgement and affect in discourse;"anxiety" nouns(fear,concern,worry) inscribe negative affect and thus invoke negative judgement and appreciation in discourse; Whereas "advantage" nouns(advantage,achievement,remedy,priority,lesson,challenge) inscribe positive appreciation and thus invoke positive judgement and affect in discourse. For the attitudinal values of attitudinal packing nouns are conspicuously observable,the attitudinal characteristics of the packed content are not bothered.
The investigation upon the 76 non-attitudinal packing nouns does not present conspicuously observable attitudinal features as the groups of the 14 attitudinal packing nouns,but two general conclusion suggests itself from the meticulous observation of the 1Ls and packed content:(1) The majority of non-attitudinal packing nouns are not "attitudinally inert".Among the 76 non-attitudinal packing nouns,75 of them occur in contexts with positive or negative attitude.Only secret is found to occur in contexts completely neutral in attitude.(2) Among the 75 non-attitudinal packing nouns,some of them occur predominantly in contexts of negative attitude,some predominantly in context of positive attitude and some predominantly in contexts of neutral attitude.For the first two situations,the negative or positive attitudinal contexts potentiate or impute packing nouns with attitudinal values and thus enable them with the status of resources of attitude invocation in discourse.In the cases where non-attitudinal packing nouns predominantly occur in contexts neutral in attitude,packing nouns function mainly to afford the facts or events for the evaluations of the readers or hearers.This is where non-attitudinal packing nouns participate in strategy of affording attitude in discourse,allowing readers or hearers the highest degree of aligning or defying the speakers' or writers' attitude.
The systematic investigation on authentic data from the well-balanced corpus BNC is enough to establish the status of packing nouns as resources for attitude realization in discourse.Theoretically,the exploration of the attitudinal function of attitudinal and non-attitudinal packing nouns broadens the scope of resources for attitude realization in discourse.Methodologically,the identification of packing nouns starting from the most promising lexico-grammatical pattern to the expected lexical items is different from the process starting from individual lexical items to the corresponding linguistic environments. Martin & White(2005:46) pointed out that it is difficult to derive corpus linguistic evidences in Interpersonal studies,the attitudinal analysis of packing nouns based on evidences from the well-balanced corpus BNC indicates the feasibility of introducing corpus linguistic methods in Interpersonal studies of language.While the objectives set at the beginning of this dissertation theoretically and descriptively achieved with the proceeding of the present study,it is still necessary to invest further research efforts in relevant issues such as enlarging the objects of investigation beyond the 90 packing nouns, investigating the comprehension dimension of the attitude trusted by the speakers and writers on packing nouns and comparing and contrasting the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns in the English language and other languages in the world.
包装名词是语言具体使用中的常用词,因此,包装名词也是现代语言学领域中的研究热点之一。语料库调查显示,典型包装名词的单数形式,如thing,fact,idea,problem等,在语言使用中的频率显著高于普通名词(包装名词的复数形式,如things,facts,ideas,problem等不在论文研究对象的范围之内)。包装名词在语言实际使用中的高频特征使其在现代语言学研究中受到广泛关注。传统语法认为包装名词的所指既不可观察(unobservability),也不可量度(unmeasuability),因此,包装名词被归入抽象名词的范畴,其研究也主要集中在包装名词的语义内涵(intensional semantics)和句法角色(syntactic role)两个方面。哲学领域对包装名词的研究最早可追溯到柏拉图对形式(forms)和可知之物(sensibles)的区别,但时至今日,哲学家们仍在为抽象事物(abstract entity)是否存在而争论不休,包装名词在语言中存在的必要性也倍受争议。不过哲学领域内也不乏以“容器”逻辑(“container”logic)为理论基础的专门针对包装名词的语言哲学探讨。显而易见,无论是传统语法领域,还是哲学领域都未能对包装名词的人际方面给与足够的重视。相对而言,包装名词在系统功能语言学中得到了较为系统和深入的研究。系统功能语言学对包装名词的经验意义重构(reconstrue)功能和在语篇中的词汇衔接功能进行了卓有成效的研究。在人际功能方面,因经典的系统功能语言学主要以语法结构为取向,注重将言语交际过程中小句的语气,情态和对话性结构等方面的研究推向深入,对词汇层面的人际意义鲜有提及。自上世纪90年代中后期开始,系统功能语言学开始从词汇层面关注语言的人际功能。评价系统就是基于词汇层的人际意义研究框架。尽管马丁(Martin)和怀特(White)指出“实现人际意义的资源也包含一些隐喻性名物成分(metaphorical nominal),”但他们认为语篇实现态度意义的“标准”(canonical)资源是形容词成分(adjectivals),名物成分仅仅是态度意义在语篇中得以实现的间接手段之一。可见,包装名词作为名物成分,其人际意义同样未受到足够的重视。近三十发展起来的语料库语言学对包装名词表现出较为浓厚的研究兴趣;其中尤以辛克莱尔(Sinclair)、弗朗西斯(Francis)、彼博尔(Bibber)、迈尔伯格(Mahlberg)等人的一些研究的研究对象与包装名词最为接近;不过,语料库语言学对包装名词的研究主要集中在包装名词的句法模式方面;尽管迈尔伯格对20个概括名词(general nouns)的研究涉及包装名词的评价意义,但包装名词的评价意义不是其研究的主要对象。总起来讲,以往与包装名词相关的研究对包装名词的人际意义,特别是其作为语篇态度意义资源的潜势的研究不够充分。尽管如此,这些研究为包装名词的态度意义研究提供了坚实的基础。
包装名词是语言使用中包装现象和包装策略的集中体现之一。语言使用中的包装现象和策略有其广泛的经验基础。在生物世界,包装是众多物种得以生存和进化的必要策略;无论是单个细胞,还是由无数个细胞组成的生命体(包括人类),都无一不是包装现象的具体例证,同时也是包装策略践行者。在社会生活中,包装现象和包装策略也无处不在:为了产品的正常运输和销售,我们往往以不同方式和不同规格进行包装;各种社会及宗教团体,甚至在以信息科技为缩影的高科技领域,包装现象也广泛存在,包装策略也被广泛使用。在经验世界中,包装预设包装材料,包装内容以及两者间的包装关系。这种经验现象映射到语言结构中则表现为包装名词对语篇内容的包装以及包装名词与包装内容之间在经验上的等同关系(experiential identity)和语义上的共指关系(co-referentiality)。包装名词作为人类认知系统中为数不多的上义范畴(superordinate category),其高度概括的范畴性特征(categorical attribute)对基本层次范畴具有突现(highlighting)和收集(collecting)功能。如果某一包装名词具有表达态度意义的范畴性特征,那么,该包装名词就具有突现其在语篇中的相应包装内容的态度意义的功能,同时还在很大程度上决定何种语篇内容能被纳入其包装范围之内。从语义上讲,包装名词的典型特征是语义的“非具体性”(semantic unspecificity),但包装名词在语义非具体性并非其固有特性:如同经验世界中的包装现象和策略一样,包装名词是长期语言使用的产物,其语义非具体性是语言使用中名物化过程对一致式过程进行信息剔除的结果。包装名词产生于名物化过程,而名物化过程有着深刻的人际动因。从包装名词的信息特征看,名物化过程中的信息丢失并不意味着信息全失。一些包装名词经过名物化以后还保留了一定的人际信息,但这些人际信息主要是概括性极高的态度信息。也有一些包装名词在经过名物化以后不再包含任何人际信息。因此,根据态度信息的有无,我们可将包装名词划分为“有态度”包装名词(attitudinalpacking noun)和“无态度”包装名词(non-attitudinal packing noun),前者在语篇中往往被用于明示(inscribe)态度,而后者则往往是语篇态度引发(attitudinal invocation)诸种策略的可选资源。
对包装名词的态度特征进行科学和系统的描述必须满足两个先决条件,即研究对象的充分性和代表性以及研究方法和步骤的科学性和合理性。在具体使用中,包装名词将语篇内容表征为高度概括的经验类别,而包装名词的具体意义则主要依赖于包装内容:包装内容主要由小句及小句以上的结构成分予以编码。尽管如此,包装名词和包装内容之间在语篇的语义层上相互共指(co-referentiality),在语篇的经验世界中则表征同一事件或抽象关系。包装名词与被包装内容之间的语义共指性和经验等同性(experiential identity)在语篇中主要有5种词汇-语法编码模式,其中,N+be+cl(即包装名词+系动词be变体+补语从句(complement))对包装名词的预期最强,包装名词出现在N+be+cl词汇-语法模式中N位置上的可能性最大。利用N+be+cl这一词汇-语法模式的18个变体在英国国家语料库(BNC)中进行检索,共发现779个包装名词。但是,并不是所有这779个包装名词在N+be+cl词汇-语法模式中的频数都达到了显著水平,如game,intuition,illustration等的绝对频数仅为1。另一方面,这779个包装名词中也有相当数量的名词不是语言使用中的高频词。分析在N+be+cl模式中的低频词或实际语言使用中的非常用词的态度特征对从整体上把握包装名词的态度特征意义不大。为了保证对包装名词的态度意义的描述具有代表性,同时避免因不必要的分析太多而使分析工作难以实施,我们一方面排除在N+be+cl词汇-语法模式中的搭配力(collocability/collocational strength)的z值小于2的包装名词,另一方面,通过查阅《朗曼当代英语词典》(第四版),排除不属于3000个在语言使用最为频繁的包装名词。用以上两个条件筛选出来的90个包装名词一方面在N+be+cl中出现的频率具有显著意义,同时又是语言使用中的3000个最常用的词,满足对包装名词进行系统描述的充分形和代表性。基于包装名词态度信息的有无,包装名词被划分为“有态度”包装名词(14个)和“无态度”包装名词(76个)。包装名词的态度意义在语篇中的实现取决于语境,同时其语境成分的语篇韵(discourse prosody)又反过来“强化”(potentiate)和“赋予”(impute)包装名词态度意义。在包装词的语境成分中,左1搭配词(first leftcollocate)和包装名词的包装内容的语篇韵对包装名词的态度意义具有最显著的强化和赋予功能。因此观察包装名词的这两类语境成分,可以最大限度地帮助我们了解包装名词是否在语篇中实现态度意义。
对14个“有态度”包装名词的左1搭配词和包装内容的态度分析显示,“有态度”包装名词在语篇中具有态度功能,且可直接观察。“问题”(problem)包装名词在语篇中明示消极鉴赏(appreciation)意义,同时还引发消极评判(judgement)和情感(affect)意义;“焦虑”(anxiety)包装名词在语篇中明示消极情感意义,同时引发消极评判和鉴赏意义。而“优势”(advantage)包装名词则明示积极鉴赏意义,并引发积情感和评判意义。
“无态度”包装名词在语篇中实现的态度意义不具有“有态度”包装名词在语篇中所实现的态度意义的高度一致性,但是对76个“无态度”包装名词的左1搭配词和包装内容的观察发现,“无态度”包装名词在语篇中实现的态度意义可作如下总结,即,绝大部分“无态度”包装名词在语篇中并非不具备实现态度意义的功能:76个“无态度”包装名词中,75个包装名词具有引发消极或积极态度意义的功能。例如,事实(factual)包装名词中的fact,thing、原因(causal)包装名词中的outcome,consequence、情态(modal)包装名词中truth,reality等在语篇中主要(predominantly)引发消极态度,而局部(partitive)包装名词中的feature、命题(propositional)包装名词中的news,信仰(creditive)包装名词中的aim等在语篇中主要引发积极态度意义。作为方式(manner)包装名词中的成员,secret是唯一不在语篇中引发消极或积极态度意义的包装名词。必须指出的是,尽管一些“无态度”包装名词在语篇中不以引发消极或积极态度意义为其主要功能,它们却引起读者或听者对其所包装的事实或行为加以注意,并藉此引发读者或听者对其包装内容进行评价的功能。从态度意义在语篇中得以实现的可选策略看,这些“无态度”包装名词是态度提供(affording attitude)策略得以实现的重要资源。从这个意义上讲,没有任何一个“无态度”包装名词不是说话者/作者的态度意义在语篇中得以实现的可选资源。
我们对包装名词,包装名词在语篇中的词汇-语法模式,以及我们在BNC语料库中发现包装名词的过程,说明语言包装现象的存在;更重要的是,对包装名词在语篇中所实现的态度意义及其在实现态度意义的诸种策略中的作用的分析是语篇态度意义资源范围的理论拓展。从方法论上讲,以词汇-语法模式为语料库检索项,并发现包装名词的语料库方法有别于以往通过对个体词项的检索去发现单个词项的语言环境,这在一定程度上是语料库使用方法上的创新。Martin&White(2005:46)指出人际意义研究很难从语料库语语言学中获取证据;我们针对包装名词进行的基于语料库的态度分析在一定程度上表明,将语料库语言学的方法用于人际意义分析是可行的。本研究仅仅是利用语料库语言学方法研究包装名词态度意义的抛砖之作。要更深刻地了解包装名词的态度意义,我们还应对扩大包装名词态度研究的范围,并将包装名词态度意义的理解,包装名词态度意义的跨语言特征等纳入我们的研究范围之内。
The present study sets out to systematically investigate the attitudinal functions of a special group of abstract nouns,the typical examples of which are thing,fact,idea,problem, result and way,etc.Based on the analysis of the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics of abstract nouns typified by thing,fact,idea,problem,result and way,etc, the term "packing noun" is proposed in this dissertation.It is hoped that with the analysis of the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics of packing nouns,the scope of the resources for attitude realization in discourse can be theoretically broadened and that with the corpus linguistic methods introduced into the existent approach to evaluation function of language,the Interpersonal study of language can be methodologically innovated.The underlying hypothesis of the present study is that packing nouns play an important role in realizing attitude in discourse.It is argued that due to the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics,packing nouns can be used not only to explicitly express speakers' attitude(i.e.attitude inscription) in discourse,but also to implicitly invoke attitude in discourse(i.e.attitude invocation).The hypotheses of the attitudinal functions of packing nouns are checked in authentic corpus-derived data in terms of the attitudinal behaviors of packing nouns per se and the discourse elements co-occurring with them.
Packing nouns are highly frequent in actual use and thus very popular in the linguistic realm as research objects.Corpus investigation shows that singular forms of packing nouns (The plural forms of packing nouns such as things,facts,problems,results,etc.are not studied in the present study.) are significantly higher in frequency than ordinary nouns.The high frequency values of packing nouns in actual use have attracted considerable linguistic attention.In traditional-grammatical studies,packing nouns are abstract nouns the referents of which are unobservable and unmeasurable.The intensional semantic features and the unique syntactic roles of packing nouns have received most of the comments from traditional grammarians.In the philosophical realm,there exists a long-standing controversy over the existence of abstract entities in the world and hence the necessity of abstract nouns in language.However,quite a number of philosophical studies have taken packing nouns as their study objects,with the "container" logic being the prevalent underlying rationale. Clearly,neither of the two previous realms has taken the Interpersonal aspect of packing nouns as their central issue.Comparatively speaking,it is in Systemic Functional Linguistics(SFL hereafter) that packing nouns are studied in a systematic and in-depth fashion.Packing nouns are found to be functionally active in Experientially reconstruing human experiences and Textually in establishing the semantic unity(i.e.,lexical cohesion) in discourse.It must be pointed out,however,that the Interpersonal function of packing nouns has been more or less overlooked since packing nouns are individual lexical items that can not be glossed under the Hallidayan Interpersonal structures(e.g.,Mood structure and dialogical structure).In the lexically-based Interpersonal framework originating from SFL,i.e.the Appraisal system,adjectivals are taken as the canonical type of resources for attitude expression,whereas packing nouns are merely resources for indirect realization of attitude in discourse and are thus again peripheral.In the new trend of corpus linguistics started three decades ago,considerable research efforts have been invested in packing nouns. Admittedly,the scope of the research objects of corpus linguistic studies by Sinclair,Francis, Bibber and Mahlberg,etc.coincide more or less with that of packing nouns,but these studies are concentrated mainly on the syntactic patterns of a number of packing nouns (such as thing,way and problem,etc.).Though Mahlberg makes excursions into the evaluative functions of 20 "general nouns"(i.e.,time nouns,people nouns and world nouns), his major concern is not the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns,but the establishment of a textlinguistic framework for general nouns.What is common to all the previous studies is that they tend to overlook the Interpersonal aspect of packing nouns and thus few investigations have been systematically carried out with the purpose of examining packing nouns in terms of their status of attitude resources in discourse.However,the (traditional) grammatical,cognitive and semantic characteristics of packing nouns gained in previous studies are preciously helpful and illuminating for our understanding of the attitudinal status of packing nouns.
Packing nouns are one of the reflections of packing phenomenon and strategy in actual language use.Packing in actual language use is pervasively embodied in our world experience.In the biological world,packing is an evolutionary strategy guaranteeing the survival of all species(including mankind as biological being).In the social world,packing is indispensable for transporting and selling products;and packing also plays an important role in social and religious organizations,even in high-tech field the epitome of which is the information technology.Packing in our experiential world presupposes packing material, the packed content and the packing relation.This experiential phenomenon is mapped into discourse as language structures:packing nouns being the packing material,stretches of discourse being the packed content and the packing relation being experiential identity and co-referentiality between packing nouns and the packed content.Cognitively,as categories at the superordinate level,the highlighting and collecting functions of packing nouns enables packing nouns to Interpersonally shadow the entities within their scopes. Semantically,packing nouns are a special group of nominals with unique semantic unspecificity.The semantic unspecificity of packing nouns is unique in the sense that it is not inherent but generated in nominalization processes,which are not only processes of objective abstraction,but also processes Interpersonally motivated.In other words,there are packing nouns with highly general Interpersonal information retained;there are also packing nouns where the Interpersonal information is missing out through the nominalization process.According to the presence or absence of Interpersonal information, packing nouns are divided as "attitudinal" and "non-attitudinal",both types playing an important role in attitude realization in discourse:Attitudinal packing nouns are used to explicitly inscribe attitude in discourse while non-attitudinal packing nouns are resources for implicitly invoking attitude in discourse.
The theoretical reasoning based on the cognitive,semantic and informational characteristics of packing nouns shows that packing nouns have the potential of realizing attitude in discourse.For a full vision of the status of packing nouns as attitude resources in discourse,however,the attitudinal behavior of packing noun in actual use must be invested. A systematic investigation of the attitudinal behaviors of packing nouns requires two premises,i.e.,the research objects optimally representative and research methodology and procedures scientifically reliable.For the identification of optimally representative packing nouns,the 18 variations of the pattern N+be+cl,which is the most promising patterns among the five lexico-grammatical patterns coding the semantic co-referentiality and experiential identity between packing nouns and their packed content,are concordanced in British National Corpus World Edition(hence BNC in this dissertation) and 779 nouns are found to be used for packing.However,not all the 779 packing nouns occurring in the pattern N+be+cl are optimal representatives of packing nouns.With two scales,i.e.,the collocability(collocational strength) in the packing pattern N+be+cl being over 2 and the frequency within the range of the top 3000 most frequent words in actual use(cf.Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,4th Edition;hence LDOCE4 in this dissertation),90 optimally representative packing nouns are identified and divided according the presence or absence of attitudinal information(viz.,the 14 "attitudinal" packing nouns and 76 "non-attitudinal" packing nouns).The scientific and reliable analysis of the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns presupposes the right approach and the most revealing parameters.Arguably,to fully understand the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns in discourse,the corpus-driven and corpus-based approaches are combined,and the 1Ls(i.e., the first left collocates of packing nouns) and the packed content are the contextual elements most revealing of the discourse prosody of packing nouns.The attitudinal features of the 1Ls and the content of packing nouns are both statistically calculable in terms of their frequencies.
The investigation of 14 attitudinal packing nouns shows that "problem" nouns(i.e., problem,trouble,difficulty,mistake and danger) inscribe negative appreciation and thus invoke negative judgement and affect in discourse;"anxiety" nouns(fear,concern,worry) inscribe negative affect and thus invoke negative judgement and appreciation in discourse; Whereas "advantage" nouns(advantage,achievement,remedy,priority,lesson,challenge) inscribe positive appreciation and thus invoke positive judgement and affect in discourse. For the attitudinal values of attitudinal packing nouns are conspicuously observable,the attitudinal characteristics of the packed content are not bothered.
The investigation upon the 76 non-attitudinal packing nouns does not present conspicuously observable attitudinal features as the groups of the 14 attitudinal packing nouns,but two general conclusion suggests itself from the meticulous observation of the 1Ls and packed content:(1) The majority of non-attitudinal packing nouns are not "attitudinally inert".Among the 76 non-attitudinal packing nouns,75 of them occur in contexts with positive or negative attitude.Only secret is found to occur in contexts completely neutral in attitude.(2) Among the 75 non-attitudinal packing nouns,some of them occur predominantly in contexts of negative attitude,some predominantly in context of positive attitude and some predominantly in contexts of neutral attitude.For the first two situations,the negative or positive attitudinal contexts potentiate or impute packing nouns with attitudinal values and thus enable them with the status of resources of attitude invocation in discourse.In the cases where non-attitudinal packing nouns predominantly occur in contexts neutral in attitude,packing nouns function mainly to afford the facts or events for the evaluations of the readers or hearers.This is where non-attitudinal packing nouns participate in strategy of affording attitude in discourse,allowing readers or hearers the highest degree of aligning or defying the speakers' or writers' attitude.
The systematic investigation on authentic data from the well-balanced corpus BNC is enough to establish the status of packing nouns as resources for attitude realization in discourse.Theoretically,the exploration of the attitudinal function of attitudinal and non-attitudinal packing nouns broadens the scope of resources for attitude realization in discourse.Methodologically,the identification of packing nouns starting from the most promising lexico-grammatical pattern to the expected lexical items is different from the process starting from individual lexical items to the corresponding linguistic environments. Martin & White(2005:46) pointed out that it is difficult to derive corpus linguistic evidences in Interpersonal studies,the attitudinal analysis of packing nouns based on evidences from the well-balanced corpus BNC indicates the feasibility of introducing corpus linguistic methods in Interpersonal studies of language.While the objectives set at the beginning of this dissertation theoretically and descriptively achieved with the proceeding of the present study,it is still necessary to invest further research efforts in relevant issues such as enlarging the objects of investigation beyond the 90 packing nouns, investigating the comprehension dimension of the attitude trusted by the speakers and writers on packing nouns and comparing and contrasting the attitudinal characteristics of packing nouns in the English language and other languages in the world.
引文
Alinei,M.(2004).Darwinism,traditional linguistics and the new palaeolithic continuity theory of language evolution.In Proceedings of the Conference on Evolutionary Epistemology,Language & Culture(EELC).Brussels:May 26-28.
Anglin,J.M.(1986).Semantic and conceptual knowledge underlying the child's words.In S.A.Kuczj and M.D.Barrett(Eds.),The development of word meaning:Progress in cognitive development research(pp.83-97).New York:Springer.
Asher,N.(1993).Reference to abstract objects in discourse.Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker,P.(2006).Using corpora in discourse analysis.London:Continuum.
Baran,P.(1964).On distributed communications,Ⅺ.California:The Rand Corporation.
Barton,E.(1993).Evidentials,argumentation,and epistemological stance.College English,55:745-769.
Beach,R.and Anson,C.(1992).Stance and intertextuality in written discourse.Linguistics and Education,4,235-257.
Bealer,G.(1993).Universals.Journal of Philosophy,90,5-32.
Beardsley,C.(1950).Practical Logic.New York:Prentice-Hall.
Becket,A.L.(1965).A tagmemic approach to paragraph analysis.College Composition and Communication,16(4),237-42.
Becket,A.L.(1966).Symposium on the paragraph.College Composition and Communication,17,67-72.
Berlin,B.and Kay,P.1969.Basic color terms.Their universality and evolution.Berkeley:University of California Press.
Berry,M.(1977).Introduction to systemic linguistics:Vol.2.Levels and links.London:Batsford.
Biber D.and Finegan,E.(1989).Style of stance in English:lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.Text,9,93-124.
Biber D.and Finegan,E.(1991).On the exploitation of computerized corpora in variation studies.In K.Aijmer and B.Altenber(Eds.),English corpus linguistics.Studies in hounour of Jan Svartvik(pp.204-11).London:Longman..
Bolinger,D.(1977).Pronouns and repeated nouns.Indiana University Linguistics Club:Indiana.
Brown,C.(1990).A survey of category types in natural language.In S.Tsohatzidis(Ed.),Meanings and prototypes(pp.17-47).Oxford:Routledge.
Brown,R.and Lenneberg,E.(1954).A study in language and cognition.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,49,454-62.
Burgess,J.and Gideon,R.(1997).A subject with no object.London:Oxford University Press.
Bumard,L.(1995).Users reference guide for the British National Corpus(Version 1.0).Oxford University Computing Services.
Byron,D.(2004).Resolving pronominal reference of abstract entities.Rochester:Rochester University Press.
Chafe,L.(1986).Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing.In L.Chafe and J.Nichols(Eds.),Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology(pp.261-72)Norwood,N J:Ablex.
Chafe,L.and Nichols J.(Eds.),(1986) Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology.Norwood,N.J.:Ablex.
Chandler,D.(2002).Semiotics:The basis.London:Routledge.
Chang,C.(2004).Grammatical metaphor and the reeonstrual of experience.Foreign Language Teaching and Research,36,31-36.
Channell,J.(2000).Corpus based analysis of evaluative lexis.In S.Hunston and G.Thompson(Eds.),Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.39-55).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Clark,H.(1996).Using language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clear,J.(1993).From Firth principles:Computational tools for the study of collocation.In M.Baker,G.Francis and E.Tognini-Bonelli(Eds.),Text and technology(pp.271-92).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Conrad,S.(2002).Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,22,75-79.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Conrad,S.and Bibber,D.(2000).Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing.In S.Hunston and G.Thompson(Eds.),Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.56-73).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cotterill,J.(2001).Domestic discord,rocky relationships:semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the O.J.Simpson trial.Discourse and Society,12,291-312.
Coulson,S.(2000).Semantic leaps:Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning-construction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft,W.(1993).The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.Cognitive Linguistics,4,335-370.
Croft,W.(2000).Explaining language change:An evolutionary approach.London:Longman.
Croft,W.and Cruse,D.(2004).Cognitive linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cruse,D.(2002).Aspects of the micro-structures of meaning.In Y.Ravin and C.Leacock (Eds.),Polysemy:Theoretical and Computational Approaches(pp.30-51).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Derewinka,B.(1995).Language development in the transition from childhood to adolescence:The role of grammatical metaphor.Unpublished PhD Thesis,Department of English and Linguistics,Macquarie University.
Dik,S.(1997).The theory of functional grammar,Part 2:Complex and derived construction(2nd ed.).By K.Hengeveld.New York:Gruyter.
Downing,P.(1980).Factors influencing lexical choice in narratives.In W.Chafe(Ed.),Cognitive,cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production(pp.89-126).Norwood N.J.:Ablex.
Eggins S.and Slade,D.(1997).Analysing casual conversation.London:Cassell.
Eggins,S.(1994).An introduction to systemic functional linguistics.London:Printer Publishers Ltd.
Ericsson,K.and Simon,H.(1985).Protocol analysis.In T.van Dijk(Ed.),Handbook of discourse analysis:Vol.2,Dimensions of Discourse(pp.259-68).New York:Academic Press.
Evans,V.(2004).The structure of time:Language,meaning and temporal cognition.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Fan,M.(1999).An investigation into the pervasiveness of delexical chunks in authentic language use and the problems they present to L2 language learners.In R.Berry et al (Eds.),Language analysis(pp.162-75).London:Harper Collins.
Field,H.(1980).Science without numbers.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Field,H.(1989).Realism,mathematics and modality.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Firth,J.R.(1957/1968).A synopsis of linguistic theory,1930-1955.In F.R.Palmer(Ed.)Selected papers of J.R.Firth 1952-1959(pp.168-2-5).London:Longman.
Flowerdew,J.(2003).Singalling nouns in discourse.English for Specific Purposes,22,329-346.
Foley,W.A.(1997).Anthropological linguistics:An introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.
Francis,G.(1986).Anaphoric nouns.Birmingham:University of Birmingham Printing Section.
Francis,G.(1989).Aspects of nominal-group lexical cohesion.Journal of Applied Linguistics,4,27-53.
Francis,G.(1994).Labeling discourse:an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion.In M.Coulthard(Ed.),Advances in written text analysis(pp.83-101).London:Routledge.
Geeraerts,D.(1985).Cognitive restrictions on the structure of semantic change.In J.Fisiak (Ed.),Historical semantics(pp.127-53).Berlin:Gruyter.
Geeraerts,D.(1988).Where does prototypicality come from? In Bygida Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.),Topics in cognitive linguistics(pp.207-29).Amersterdam:Benjamins.
Geeraerts,D.(1989).Introduction:Prospects and problems of prototype theory.Linguistics,27,587-612.
Gilquin,G.(2006).The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics:Causation in the hot seat.In:S.Th.Gales and A.Stefanowitsch(Eds.),Corpora in cognitive linguistics(pp.161-191).New York:Gruyter.
Givon,T.(1990).Syntax:A functional-typological introduction,Vol.2.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Givon,T.(1995).Coherence in text vs.Coherence in mind.In M.Gernsbacher,and T.Giveon(Eds.),Coherence in spontaneous text(pp.59-115).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Gluck,M and Corter,J.(1985).Information,uncertainty and the utility of categories.In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Goatly,A.(1996).Green grammar and grammatical metaphor or language and the myth of power or metaphors we die by.Journal of Pragmatics,25,537-60.
Goethals,P and Gent,H.(2003).The conduit metaphor and the analysis of meaning:Percean semiotics,cognitive grammar and systemic functional grammar.In A Vandenbergen,M.Taverneirs and L.Ravelli(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:Views from systemic functional linguistics(pp.369-89).Philadelphia:John Benjamins B.V.
Graham,P.(2002).Predication and propagation:A method for analyzing evaluative meanings in technology policy.Text,22,227-68.
Graustein,G.and Thiele,W.(1987).Properties of English text.Leipzig:VEB Verlag Enzyklopadie.
Gries,S.T.(2004).Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics:A study of particle placement.Beijing:Peking University Press.
Grimes,J.(1975).The thread of discourse.The Hague:Mouton.
Gundel,J.K.,Hedberg,N.and Zacharski,R.(2002).Pronouns without explicit antecedents:How do we know when a pronoun is referential? Presented at DAARC-4(the Fourth Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium),Lisbon,Portugal.In Ping Yu,2005(http://cllt.osu.edu/mclc/paper/corpus_yu.pdf).
Halliday,M.A.K.(1961).Categories of the theory of grammar.Word,17,241-292.
Halliday,M.A.K.0966).Lexis as a linguistic level.In C.E.Bazell,J.C.Catford and M.A.K.(Eds.),In memory of J.R.Firth(pp.148-62).London:Longman.
Halliday,M.A.K.(1985a).An introduction to functional grammar.London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday,M.A.K.(1985b).Spoken and written language.Geelong,Vic.:Deakin University Press.
Halliday,M.A.K.(2003).Grammar,society and the noun.In J.Webster(Ed.),On language and linguistics(pp.50-73).London:Continuum.
Halliday,M.A.K.and Hasan,R.(1976).Cohesion in English.London:Longman Group Ltd.
Halliday,M.A.K.and Hasan,R.(1985).Language,context and text:A social semiotic perspective.Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Halliday M.A.K.and Martin,J.R.(1993).Writing science:Literacy and discursive power.London:Falmer Press.
Halliday,M.A.K.and Matthiessen,M.I.M.(1999).Construing experience through meaning:A language-based approach to cognition.London:Cassell.
Halliday,M.A.K.,Teubert,W.,Yallop,C.and Cermakova,A.(2004).Lexicology and corpus linguistics:An introduction.London:Continum.
Halliday,M.A.K.,(1997).Linguistics as metaphor.In A.Vandenbergen,K.Davids and D.Noel,(Eds.),Reconnecting language:Morphology and syntax in functional perspectives(pp.3-27).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Heider,E.(1971)."Focal" color areas and the development of color names.Developmental Psychology,4,447-55.
Heyvaert,L.(2003).Nominalization as grammatical metaphor:On the need for a radically systemic and metafunetional approach.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Taverniers and L.Ravelli,(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:views from systemic Functional linguistics(pp.65-99).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Heyvaert,L.(2003).Nominalization as grammatical metaphor.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Tavemiers and L.Ravelli,(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:views from systemic Functional linguistics(pp.365-99).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Hiraga M.(1994).Diagrams and metaphors:Iconic aspects in language.Journal of Pragmatics,22,5-21.
Hoey,M.(1979).Signaling in discourse.Birmingham:English Language Research,University of Birmingham.
Hoey,M.(2000).Textual interaction:Introduction to written discourse analysis.London:Routledge.
Hoey,M.(1983a).On the surface of discourse.London:George Allen & Unwin(Publishers)Ltd.
Hoey,M.(1983b).Three metaphors for examining the semantic organization of monologue.Analysis:Quaderni di Anglistica,1,27-54.
Hoey,M.P.(1986a).Overlapping patterns of discourse organization and their implications for clause relational analysis in problem-solution texts.In C,Cooper and S.Greenbaum,(Eds.),Studying writing:linguistic approaches(pp.187-214).London:Sage
Hoey,M.P.(1986b).The discourse colony:a preliminary study of a neglected discourse type.In M.Coulthard,(Ed.),Talking about text:Studies presented to David Brazil on his retirement.Birmingham:English Research,University of Birmingham.
Hoey,M.(1991).Patterns of lexis in text.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hoey,M.(1994).A common signal in discourse:How the word reason is used.In J.Sinclair,M.Hoey,and G.Fox(Eds.),Techniques of description,spoken and written discourse.A Festschrift for Malcom Coulthard(pp.67-82).London:Routledge.
Hoey,M.and Winter,E.(1982).Believe me for mine honour:A stylistic analysis of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Anthony at Caesar's funeral in Julius Caesar,Act Ⅲ,Scene 2,from the point of view of discourse construction.Language Style,14,4.
Holmes,J.(1984).Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence:Some evidence for hedges as support structures.Te Reo,27,47-62.
Hunston,S.(1994).Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse.In M.Coulthard,(Ed.),Advances in written text analysis(pp.191-218).London:Routledge.
Hunston,S.(2001).Colligation,lexis,pattern,and text.In M.ScoRe,and G.Thompson,(Eds.) Patterns of text:In honour of Michael Hoey(pp.13-33).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hunston,S.and Sinclair,L.(2000).A local grammar of evaluation.In S.Hunston,and G.Thompson,(Eds.),Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.74-101).London:Oxford University Press.
Hunston,S.(2002).Corpora in Applied Linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hyland,K.(1996).Talking to the academy:forms of hedging in scientific research articles.Written Communication,13,251-81.
Iedema,R.,Feez,S.and White,P.(1994).Media literacy(Written it Right Literacy in Industry Research Project-Stage 3).Sydney:Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program,NSW Department of School Education.
Itkonen,E.(1994).Iconicity,analogy,and universal grammar.Journal of Pragmatics,22,37-53.
Ivanic,R.(1991).Nouns in search of context:A study of nouns with both open-and-closed-system characteristics.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,2,93-114.
Jakobson,R.(1990/1965).Quest for the essence of language.In L.Waugh and M.Monville-Burston(Eds.),On language(pp.407-21).Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.
Jesperson,O.(1927).A modern English grammar on historical principles:Part Ⅲ,Vol.2,Syntax.Second Volume.Heidelberg:Carl Winters Universitats-buchhandlung.
Johnson,M.(1987).The body in the mind:The body basis of meaning,imagination,and reason.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Jordens,C.(2002).Reading spoken stories for values:A discursive study of cancer survivors and their professional carets.University of Sydney PhD.Thesis.
Kennedy,G.(2000/1998).An introduction to corpus linguistics.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kiparsky,P and Kisparsky,C.(1971).Fact.In D.Steinberg and L.Takobovities(Eds.), Semantics.An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy,linguistics and psychology(pp.345-369).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Koen,F.,R.Young and Becker,A.(1969).The psychological reality of the paragraph.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour,8,49-53.
Kuteva,T.(1994).Iconicity and anxiliation.Journal of Pragmatics,22,71-81
Labov,W.(1984).Intensity.In D.Sehiffrin(Ed.),Meaning,form,and use in context:Linguistic applications(pp.43-70).Washington:Georgetown University Press.
Labov,W.and Walesky,J.(1967).Narrative analysis:oral versions of personal experience.In W.Labov,and J.Walesky,(Eds.),Essay on the verbal and visual arts.(pp.12-44).Seattle:University of Washington Press.
Lakoff,G.(1987).Women,fire and dangerous things.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff,G.(1993).The contemporary theory of Metaphor.In A.Ortony,(Ed.),Metaphor and thought(2nd ed.)(pp.202-51).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff,G.and Johnson M.(1980).Metaphors we live by.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff,G.and Johnson,M.(1999).Philosophy in the flesh:The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought.New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff.G.(1986).Classifiers as a reflection of mind.In C.Craig(Ed.) Noun classes and categorization(pp.13-52).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Langacker,R.W.(1987).Foundations of cognitive grammar:Vol.I,The theoretical prerequisites.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker,R.W.(1988).An overview of cognitive grammar.In B.Rudzka-Ostyn(Ed.)Topics in cognitive linguistics(pp.3-48).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Langacker,R.W.(1990).Concept,image andsymbol.New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech,G.(1983).Principles of pragmatics.London:Longman.
Leech,G.(1991).The state of the art in corpus linguistics.In K.Aijmer and B.Altenber (Eds.),English corpus linguistics.Studies in hounour of Jan Svartvik(pp.8-29)London:Longman.
Leech,G.(1993).100 million words of English.English Today,33,9-15.
Lemke,J.(1988) Resources for attitudinal meaning:Evaluative orientation in text semantic.Functions of Language,5,33-56.
Lenneberg,E.(1967).Biological foundations of language.New York:Wiley.
Levison,S.C.(1983).Pragmatics.London:Cambridge University Press.
Liu Runqing,(1995).Schools of linguistics.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Louw,B.(1993).Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnositic potential of semantic prosodies.In M.Baker,G.Francis and E.Tognini-Bognelli(Eds.),Text and technology:In honour of John Sinclair(pp.157-76).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Lyons,J.(1968).Introduction to theoretical linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons,J.(1977).Semantics:Vol.2.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons,J.(1989).Semantic ascent;a neglected aspect of syntactic typology.In D.Arnold,et al.(Eds.) Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar(pp.153-86).Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Mahlberg,M.(2003).The textlinguistic dimension of corpus linguistics:The support function of English general nouns and its theoretical implications.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,8,97-108.
Mahlberg,M.(2005).English general nouns:A corpus theoretical approach.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Martin,J.R.(1985/1989).Factual writing:exploring and challenging social reality.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Martin,J.R.(1992).English text:System and structure.Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Martin,J.R.(1995a).Text and clause:Fractal resonance.Text,15,5-42
Martin,J.R.(1995b).Interpersonal meaning,persuasion and public discourse:Packing semiotic punch.Australian Journal of Linguistics 15,33-67.
Martin,J.R.(1996).Types of structure:deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text.In M.Hoey,and Scott D.(Eds.),Computational and Conversational Discourse:Burning Issues—an Interdisciplinary Account(pp.39-66).Heidelberg:Springer.
Martin,J.R.(1997).Analyzing genre:Functional parameters.In C.Frances and J.Martin (Eds.),Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school(pp.3-39).London:Cassell.
Martin,J.R.(2000a).Beyond exchange:Appraisal systems in English.In S.Hunstonand and G.Thompson(Eds.),Evaluation in texts:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.142-75).Oxford University Press.
Martin,J.R.(2000b).Factoring out exchange:Types of structure.In M.Coulthard(Ed.), Working with dialogue(pp.19-40).Tubingen:Niemeyer.
Martin,J.R.(2001).Writing history:construing time and value in discourses of the past.In M.Schleppergrell and C.Colombi(Eds.),Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages(pp.87-118).Mahwah,N J:Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Martin,J.R.and Rose,D.(2003).Working with discourse:Meaning beyond the clause.London:Continuum.
Martin,J.R.and White,P.(2005).The language of evaluation:Appraisal in English.New York:Palgrave Machmillan.
McIntosh,A.(1966).As you like it:a grammatical clue to character.In A.McIntosh and M.A.K.Halliday(Eds.).Patterns of language:Papers in general,descriptive and applied linguistics(pp.70-82).London:Longman.
Melrose,R.(2003).'Having things both ways':Grammatical metaphor in a systemic-functional model of language.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Tavemiers,L.Ravelli (Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:Views from systemic functional linguistics(pp.417-42).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Menzel,P.(1975).Semantics and syntax in complementation.The Hague:Mouton.
Miao Xingwei,(2007).Evaluative enhanced thematic construction in English.Shandong Foreign Languages Education,2,54-57.
Midtgarden,T.(2002).Iconic aspect of language and language use:Peirce's work on iconicity revisited.Semiotica 139,227-44.
Miller,G.(1956).The magical number seven,plus or minus two:Some limits on our capacity for processing information.The Psychological Review,63,81-97.
Montague,R.(1979).Formal philosophy.New Heaven:Yale University Press.
Murphy,G.L.(2002).The big book of concepts.Cambridge:MIT Press.
Nerlich,B.(1990).Change in language.Whitney,Breal and Wegener.London:Routledge.
Newmeyer,F.J.(1998).Language form and language function.Cambridge:MIT Press.
Nicholas,D.(2000).Assessing information needs:Tools,techniques and concepts for the Internet age.London:Aslib.
Ochs,E.(ed.)(1989).The pragmatics of affect.Special issue of Text,9,3.
Olson,D.(1994).The world of paper:The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Painter,C.(2003).Developing attitude:An ontogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL.Text,23,183-210.
Palmer,F.R.(1990).Modality and the English modals,(2nd ed.).London:Longman.
Parson,G.(1996).The development of the concept of Cohesive Harmony.In M.Berr,et al.(Eds.),Meaning and form:Sstemic Functional interpretations(pp.585-99).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Petofi,J.(1974).Towards an empirically motivated grammatical theory of verbal texts.In J.Petofi and Rieser(Eds.),Studies in text grammar(pp.205-75).Dordrecht:Reidel.
Philipps,M.(1983).Lexical macrostructure in science text.Birmingham:University of Birmingham.
Philipps,M.(1985).Aspects of text structure:An investigation of the lexical organization of text.Amsterdam:North-Holland.
philipps,M.(1989).The lexical structure of text.Birmingham:English Language Research,University of Birmingham.
Pike,K.and Pike,E.(1977).Grammatical analysis.Dalas:Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University or Texas at Arlington.
Poutsma,H.(1927).A grammar of late modern english(2nd ed.).Groningen:Nordboff.
Quirk,R.,et al.(1985).A comprehensive grammar of the English language.London:Longman Group Limited.
Radden,G.(1992).The cognitive approach to natural language.In M.Putz(Ed.),Noun classes and categorization(pp.53-61).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Ravelli,L.(2003).Renewal of connection:Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Taverniers,L.Ravelli(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics(pp.37-64).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Reddy,M.(1979).The conduit metaphor.In A.Ortony,(Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp.284-324).Cambridge:Cambridge the University Press.
Reddy,M.(1993).The conduit metaphor:A case of frame conflict in our language about language:In A.Ortony(Ed.),Metaphor and thought,(2nd ed.)(pp.164-220).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Rieser,H.(1978).On the development of text grammar.In W.Dressler(ed.),Current trends in text linguistics(pp.6-20).Berlin:Gruyter.
Rosch,E.(1973).On the internal structure of pereeptual and semantic categories.In T.Moore,(Ed.),Cognitive development and the acquisition of language(pp.114-44).New York:Academic Press.
Rosch,E.(1975).Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology,General,104,193-233.
Rosch,E.(1978).Principles of categorization.In E.Rosch and B.Lloyed(Eds.),Cognition and Categorization(pp.27-48).Hillsdale/N.J.:Lawrence Edbaum.
Rosen,G.(2001).Abstract object.In E.Zalta(Ed.),The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.(Fall 2001 ed.).(URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2001/entries/abstract-objects/)
Saussure,F.(1983/1916).Course in general linguistics.(trans.Roy Harris).London:Duckworth.
Schmid,H.J.(1999).Cognitive effects of shell nouns.In K.Hock,A.Kibirk and L.Noordman(Eds.),Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics:Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference,Amsterdam,July 1997(pp.111-132).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Schmid,H.J.(2000).English abstract nouns as conceptual shells—from corpus to cognition.New York:Gruyter.
Schmid,H.J.(2001).'Presupposition can be a bluff':How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers.Journal of Pragmatics,33,1529-1552.
Scott,M.and Thompson,G.(2001).Patterns of text:In honour of Michael Heoy.London:Benjamins.
Sinclair,J.(1966),Beginning the study of lexis.In C.E.Bazcll et al(Eds.),In memory of J.R.Firth(pp.410-13).London:Longrnan.
Sinclair,J.(1991).Corpus,collocation,concordance.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Sinclair,J.(1998).The lexical item.In E.Weigand(Ed.),Contrastive lexical semantics(pp.1-24).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Sinclair,J.(1999).A way with common words.In H.Hasselgard and S.Oksefjell(Eds.),Out of corpora.Studies in honour of Stig Johansson(pp.157-79).Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Sinclair,J.(2004).Trust the Text.London:Routledge.
Sinclair,J.1987.Collocation:a progress report[A].In R.Steel and T.Threadgold(Eds.),Language topics:An international collection of papers by colleagues,students and admirers of Professor Michael Halliday to honour him on his retirement:Vol.2(pp.319-331).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Stubbs,M.(2001).Words and phrases.Corpus studies of lexical semantics.Oxford:Blackwell.
Stuessy,F.(1993).Plant taxonomy.The systematic evaluation of comparative data.New York:Columbia University Press.
Sweetser,E.(1999).Compositionality and blending:Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework.In T.Janssen and G.Redeker(Eds.),Cognitive linguistics:Foundations,scope and methodology(pp.129-62).Berlin:Gruyter.
Tang Qingye,(2005).Packet Nouns and Information Packaging in Discourse,PhD thesis.Xiamen University.
Taylor,J.R.(2002).Cognitive grammar.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tennant,N.(1997).On the necessary existence of numbers.Nous,31,127-41.
Thompson,G.(1996).Introducing functional grammar.London:Edward Arnold.
Townsend,D.and Beaver,T.(2001).Sentence comprehension:The integration of habits and rules.MA:The MIT Press.
Tsui,A.B.M.1991.Sequency rules and coherence in discourse.Journal of Pragmatics,15,111-29.
Tuggy,D.(1996).The thing is that people talk that way.The question is is why?.In E;H.Casad(Ed.),Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods.The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics(pp.713-52).New York:G-ruyter.
Tversky,B.(1990).Where partonomies and taxonomies meet.In S.L.Tsohatzidis(Ed.),Meanings and prototypes.Studies on linguistic categories(pp.334-44).Oxford:Routledge.
Tyler,A.and Evans,V.(2003).The semantics of English prepositions:Spatial scenes,embodied meaning and cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer,F.and Schimd,H.J.(1996).An introduction to cognitive linguistics.London:Longman.
Vendler,Z.(1967).Linguistics in philosophy.New York:Cornell University Press.
Vendler,Z.(1968).Adjectives and nominalizations.The Hague:Mouton.
Ventola,E.(1987).The structure of social interaction:A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters.London:Frances Printer.
Waugh,L.(1994).Degree of Iconicity in Lexicon.Journal of Pragmatics,22,55-70.
Webber,B.L.(1991).Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis.Language and Cognitive Processes,6,107-35.
Wee,L.(2002).The semiotic metaphor:.The conduit metaphor in Singapore's language policy.Journal of Language and Politics,1,199-220.
Wierzbica,A.(1985).Lexicography and conceptual analysis.Ann Arbor:Karoma Publishers.
Winter,E.(1974).Replacement as a function of repetition:A study of some of its principle features in the clause relations of contemporary English,PhD thesis,University of London.
Winter,E.(1968).Some aspects of cohesion.In Sentence and clause in scientific English,report of the research project 'The Linguistic Prosperities of Scientific English'.London:University College London,Department of General Linguistics.
Winter,E.(1971).Connection in science material:a proposition about the semantics of clause relations.In Center for information on language teaching papers and reports,741-52.London:Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research for British Association for Applied Linguistics.
Winter,E.(1977).A clause-relational approach to English texts.In Instructional Science,6,1-92.
Winter,E.(1978).A look at the role of certain words in information structure.In K.P.Jones and V.Horsnell(Eds.),Informatics 3,proceedings of a conference held by the Aslib Co-ordinate Indexing Group,1975.London:Aslib.
Winter,E.(1992).The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analyzing the information of a fund-raising letter(pp.131-70).In W.C.Man and S.A.Thompson,(Eds.),Discourse descriptions.Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yang,Huizhong.(2002).An introduction to corpus linguistics.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zalta,E.(1983).Abstract objects:An introduction to axiomatic metaphysics.Dordrecht:D Reidd.
Zorkoczy,P.(1983).Information technology:An introduction.New York:Knowledge Industry Publication,Inc.
Anglin,J.M.(1986).Semantic and conceptual knowledge underlying the child's words.In S.A.Kuczj and M.D.Barrett(Eds.),The development of word meaning:Progress in cognitive development research(pp.83-97).New York:Springer.
Asher,N.(1993).Reference to abstract objects in discourse.Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker,P.(2006).Using corpora in discourse analysis.London:Continuum.
Baran,P.(1964).On distributed communications,Ⅺ.California:The Rand Corporation.
Barton,E.(1993).Evidentials,argumentation,and epistemological stance.College English,55:745-769.
Beach,R.and Anson,C.(1992).Stance and intertextuality in written discourse.Linguistics and Education,4,235-257.
Bealer,G.(1993).Universals.Journal of Philosophy,90,5-32.
Beardsley,C.(1950).Practical Logic.New York:Prentice-Hall.
Becket,A.L.(1965).A tagmemic approach to paragraph analysis.College Composition and Communication,16(4),237-42.
Becket,A.L.(1966).Symposium on the paragraph.College Composition and Communication,17,67-72.
Berlin,B.and Kay,P.1969.Basic color terms.Their universality and evolution.Berkeley:University of California Press.
Berry,M.(1977).Introduction to systemic linguistics:Vol.2.Levels and links.London:Batsford.
Biber D.and Finegan,E.(1989).Style of stance in English:lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.Text,9,93-124.
Biber D.and Finegan,E.(1991).On the exploitation of computerized corpora in variation studies.In K.Aijmer and B.Altenber(Eds.),English corpus linguistics.Studies in hounour of Jan Svartvik(pp.204-11).London:Longman..
Bolinger,D.(1977).Pronouns and repeated nouns.Indiana University Linguistics Club:Indiana.
Brown,C.(1990).A survey of category types in natural language.In S.Tsohatzidis(Ed.),Meanings and prototypes(pp.17-47).Oxford:Routledge.
Brown,R.and Lenneberg,E.(1954).A study in language and cognition.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,49,454-62.
Burgess,J.and Gideon,R.(1997).A subject with no object.London:Oxford University Press.
Bumard,L.(1995).Users reference guide for the British National Corpus(Version 1.0).Oxford University Computing Services.
Byron,D.(2004).Resolving pronominal reference of abstract entities.Rochester:Rochester University Press.
Chafe,L.(1986).Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing.In L.Chafe and J.Nichols(Eds.),Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology(pp.261-72)Norwood,N J:Ablex.
Chafe,L.and Nichols J.(Eds.),(1986) Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology.Norwood,N.J.:Ablex.
Chandler,D.(2002).Semiotics:The basis.London:Routledge.
Chang,C.(2004).Grammatical metaphor and the reeonstrual of experience.Foreign Language Teaching and Research,36,31-36.
Channell,J.(2000).Corpus based analysis of evaluative lexis.In S.Hunston and G.Thompson(Eds.),Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.39-55).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Clark,H.(1996).Using language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clear,J.(1993).From Firth principles:Computational tools for the study of collocation.In M.Baker,G.Francis and E.Tognini-Bonelli(Eds.),Text and technology(pp.271-92).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Conrad,S.(2002).Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,22,75-79.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Conrad,S.and Bibber,D.(2000).Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing.In S.Hunston and G.Thompson(Eds.),Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.56-73).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cotterill,J.(2001).Domestic discord,rocky relationships:semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the O.J.Simpson trial.Discourse and Society,12,291-312.
Coulson,S.(2000).Semantic leaps:Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning-construction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft,W.(1993).The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.Cognitive Linguistics,4,335-370.
Croft,W.(2000).Explaining language change:An evolutionary approach.London:Longman.
Croft,W.and Cruse,D.(2004).Cognitive linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cruse,D.(2002).Aspects of the micro-structures of meaning.In Y.Ravin and C.Leacock (Eds.),Polysemy:Theoretical and Computational Approaches(pp.30-51).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Derewinka,B.(1995).Language development in the transition from childhood to adolescence:The role of grammatical metaphor.Unpublished PhD Thesis,Department of English and Linguistics,Macquarie University.
Dik,S.(1997).The theory of functional grammar,Part 2:Complex and derived construction(2nd ed.).By K.Hengeveld.New York:Gruyter.
Downing,P.(1980).Factors influencing lexical choice in narratives.In W.Chafe(Ed.),Cognitive,cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production(pp.89-126).Norwood N.J.:Ablex.
Eggins S.and Slade,D.(1997).Analysing casual conversation.London:Cassell.
Eggins,S.(1994).An introduction to systemic functional linguistics.London:Printer Publishers Ltd.
Ericsson,K.and Simon,H.(1985).Protocol analysis.In T.van Dijk(Ed.),Handbook of discourse analysis:Vol.2,Dimensions of Discourse(pp.259-68).New York:Academic Press.
Evans,V.(2004).The structure of time:Language,meaning and temporal cognition.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Fan,M.(1999).An investigation into the pervasiveness of delexical chunks in authentic language use and the problems they present to L2 language learners.In R.Berry et al (Eds.),Language analysis(pp.162-75).London:Harper Collins.
Field,H.(1980).Science without numbers.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Field,H.(1989).Realism,mathematics and modality.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Firth,J.R.(1957/1968).A synopsis of linguistic theory,1930-1955.In F.R.Palmer(Ed.)Selected papers of J.R.Firth 1952-1959(pp.168-2-5).London:Longman.
Flowerdew,J.(2003).Singalling nouns in discourse.English for Specific Purposes,22,329-346.
Foley,W.A.(1997).Anthropological linguistics:An introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.
Francis,G.(1986).Anaphoric nouns.Birmingham:University of Birmingham Printing Section.
Francis,G.(1989).Aspects of nominal-group lexical cohesion.Journal of Applied Linguistics,4,27-53.
Francis,G.(1994).Labeling discourse:an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion.In M.Coulthard(Ed.),Advances in written text analysis(pp.83-101).London:Routledge.
Geeraerts,D.(1985).Cognitive restrictions on the structure of semantic change.In J.Fisiak (Ed.),Historical semantics(pp.127-53).Berlin:Gruyter.
Geeraerts,D.(1988).Where does prototypicality come from? In Bygida Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.),Topics in cognitive linguistics(pp.207-29).Amersterdam:Benjamins.
Geeraerts,D.(1989).Introduction:Prospects and problems of prototype theory.Linguistics,27,587-612.
Gilquin,G.(2006).The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics:Causation in the hot seat.In:S.Th.Gales and A.Stefanowitsch(Eds.),Corpora in cognitive linguistics(pp.161-191).New York:Gruyter.
Givon,T.(1990).Syntax:A functional-typological introduction,Vol.2.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Givon,T.(1995).Coherence in text vs.Coherence in mind.In M.Gernsbacher,and T.Giveon(Eds.),Coherence in spontaneous text(pp.59-115).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Gluck,M and Corter,J.(1985).Information,uncertainty and the utility of categories.In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Goatly,A.(1996).Green grammar and grammatical metaphor or language and the myth of power or metaphors we die by.Journal of Pragmatics,25,537-60.
Goethals,P and Gent,H.(2003).The conduit metaphor and the analysis of meaning:Percean semiotics,cognitive grammar and systemic functional grammar.In A Vandenbergen,M.Taverneirs and L.Ravelli(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:Views from systemic functional linguistics(pp.369-89).Philadelphia:John Benjamins B.V.
Graham,P.(2002).Predication and propagation:A method for analyzing evaluative meanings in technology policy.Text,22,227-68.
Graustein,G.and Thiele,W.(1987).Properties of English text.Leipzig:VEB Verlag Enzyklopadie.
Gries,S.T.(2004).Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics:A study of particle placement.Beijing:Peking University Press.
Grimes,J.(1975).The thread of discourse.The Hague:Mouton.
Gundel,J.K.,Hedberg,N.and Zacharski,R.(2002).Pronouns without explicit antecedents:How do we know when a pronoun is referential? Presented at DAARC-4(the Fourth Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium),Lisbon,Portugal.In Ping Yu,2005(http://cllt.osu.edu/mclc/paper/corpus_yu.pdf).
Halliday,M.A.K.(1961).Categories of the theory of grammar.Word,17,241-292.
Halliday,M.A.K.0966).Lexis as a linguistic level.In C.E.Bazell,J.C.Catford and M.A.K.(Eds.),In memory of J.R.Firth(pp.148-62).London:Longman.
Halliday,M.A.K.(1985a).An introduction to functional grammar.London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday,M.A.K.(1985b).Spoken and written language.Geelong,Vic.:Deakin University Press.
Halliday,M.A.K.(2003).Grammar,society and the noun.In J.Webster(Ed.),On language and linguistics(pp.50-73).London:Continuum.
Halliday,M.A.K.and Hasan,R.(1976).Cohesion in English.London:Longman Group Ltd.
Halliday,M.A.K.and Hasan,R.(1985).Language,context and text:A social semiotic perspective.Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Halliday M.A.K.and Martin,J.R.(1993).Writing science:Literacy and discursive power.London:Falmer Press.
Halliday,M.A.K.and Matthiessen,M.I.M.(1999).Construing experience through meaning:A language-based approach to cognition.London:Cassell.
Halliday,M.A.K.,Teubert,W.,Yallop,C.and Cermakova,A.(2004).Lexicology and corpus linguistics:An introduction.London:Continum.
Halliday,M.A.K.,(1997).Linguistics as metaphor.In A.Vandenbergen,K.Davids and D.Noel,(Eds.),Reconnecting language:Morphology and syntax in functional perspectives(pp.3-27).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Heider,E.(1971)."Focal" color areas and the development of color names.Developmental Psychology,4,447-55.
Heyvaert,L.(2003).Nominalization as grammatical metaphor:On the need for a radically systemic and metafunetional approach.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Taverniers and L.Ravelli,(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:views from systemic Functional linguistics(pp.65-99).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Heyvaert,L.(2003).Nominalization as grammatical metaphor.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Tavemiers and L.Ravelli,(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:views from systemic Functional linguistics(pp.365-99).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Hiraga M.(1994).Diagrams and metaphors:Iconic aspects in language.Journal of Pragmatics,22,5-21.
Hoey,M.(1979).Signaling in discourse.Birmingham:English Language Research,University of Birmingham.
Hoey,M.(2000).Textual interaction:Introduction to written discourse analysis.London:Routledge.
Hoey,M.(1983a).On the surface of discourse.London:George Allen & Unwin(Publishers)Ltd.
Hoey,M.(1983b).Three metaphors for examining the semantic organization of monologue.Analysis:Quaderni di Anglistica,1,27-54.
Hoey,M.P.(1986a).Overlapping patterns of discourse organization and their implications for clause relational analysis in problem-solution texts.In C,Cooper and S.Greenbaum,(Eds.),Studying writing:linguistic approaches(pp.187-214).London:Sage
Hoey,M.P.(1986b).The discourse colony:a preliminary study of a neglected discourse type.In M.Coulthard,(Ed.),Talking about text:Studies presented to David Brazil on his retirement.Birmingham:English Research,University of Birmingham.
Hoey,M.(1991).Patterns of lexis in text.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hoey,M.(1994).A common signal in discourse:How the word reason is used.In J.Sinclair,M.Hoey,and G.Fox(Eds.),Techniques of description,spoken and written discourse.A Festschrift for Malcom Coulthard(pp.67-82).London:Routledge.
Hoey,M.and Winter,E.(1982).Believe me for mine honour:A stylistic analysis of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Anthony at Caesar's funeral in Julius Caesar,Act Ⅲ,Scene 2,from the point of view of discourse construction.Language Style,14,4.
Holmes,J.(1984).Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence:Some evidence for hedges as support structures.Te Reo,27,47-62.
Hunston,S.(1994).Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse.In M.Coulthard,(Ed.),Advances in written text analysis(pp.191-218).London:Routledge.
Hunston,S.(2001).Colligation,lexis,pattern,and text.In M.ScoRe,and G.Thompson,(Eds.) Patterns of text:In honour of Michael Hoey(pp.13-33).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hunston,S.and Sinclair,L.(2000).A local grammar of evaluation.In S.Hunston,and G.Thompson,(Eds.),Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.74-101).London:Oxford University Press.
Hunston,S.(2002).Corpora in Applied Linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hyland,K.(1996).Talking to the academy:forms of hedging in scientific research articles.Written Communication,13,251-81.
Iedema,R.,Feez,S.and White,P.(1994).Media literacy(Written it Right Literacy in Industry Research Project-Stage 3).Sydney:Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program,NSW Department of School Education.
Itkonen,E.(1994).Iconicity,analogy,and universal grammar.Journal of Pragmatics,22,37-53.
Ivanic,R.(1991).Nouns in search of context:A study of nouns with both open-and-closed-system characteristics.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,2,93-114.
Jakobson,R.(1990/1965).Quest for the essence of language.In L.Waugh and M.Monville-Burston(Eds.),On language(pp.407-21).Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.
Jesperson,O.(1927).A modern English grammar on historical principles:Part Ⅲ,Vol.2,Syntax.Second Volume.Heidelberg:Carl Winters Universitats-buchhandlung.
Johnson,M.(1987).The body in the mind:The body basis of meaning,imagination,and reason.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Jordens,C.(2002).Reading spoken stories for values:A discursive study of cancer survivors and their professional carets.University of Sydney PhD.Thesis.
Kennedy,G.(2000/1998).An introduction to corpus linguistics.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kiparsky,P and Kisparsky,C.(1971).Fact.In D.Steinberg and L.Takobovities(Eds.), Semantics.An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy,linguistics and psychology(pp.345-369).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Koen,F.,R.Young and Becker,A.(1969).The psychological reality of the paragraph.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour,8,49-53.
Kuteva,T.(1994).Iconicity and anxiliation.Journal of Pragmatics,22,71-81
Labov,W.(1984).Intensity.In D.Sehiffrin(Ed.),Meaning,form,and use in context:Linguistic applications(pp.43-70).Washington:Georgetown University Press.
Labov,W.and Walesky,J.(1967).Narrative analysis:oral versions of personal experience.In W.Labov,and J.Walesky,(Eds.),Essay on the verbal and visual arts.(pp.12-44).Seattle:University of Washington Press.
Lakoff,G.(1987).Women,fire and dangerous things.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff,G.(1993).The contemporary theory of Metaphor.In A.Ortony,(Ed.),Metaphor and thought(2nd ed.)(pp.202-51).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff,G.and Johnson M.(1980).Metaphors we live by.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff,G.and Johnson,M.(1999).Philosophy in the flesh:The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought.New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff.G.(1986).Classifiers as a reflection of mind.In C.Craig(Ed.) Noun classes and categorization(pp.13-52).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Langacker,R.W.(1987).Foundations of cognitive grammar:Vol.I,The theoretical prerequisites.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker,R.W.(1988).An overview of cognitive grammar.In B.Rudzka-Ostyn(Ed.)Topics in cognitive linguistics(pp.3-48).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Langacker,R.W.(1990).Concept,image andsymbol.New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech,G.(1983).Principles of pragmatics.London:Longman.
Leech,G.(1991).The state of the art in corpus linguistics.In K.Aijmer and B.Altenber (Eds.),English corpus linguistics.Studies in hounour of Jan Svartvik(pp.8-29)London:Longman.
Leech,G.(1993).100 million words of English.English Today,33,9-15.
Lemke,J.(1988) Resources for attitudinal meaning:Evaluative orientation in text semantic.Functions of Language,5,33-56.
Lenneberg,E.(1967).Biological foundations of language.New York:Wiley.
Levison,S.C.(1983).Pragmatics.London:Cambridge University Press.
Liu Runqing,(1995).Schools of linguistics.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Louw,B.(1993).Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnositic potential of semantic prosodies.In M.Baker,G.Francis and E.Tognini-Bognelli(Eds.),Text and technology:In honour of John Sinclair(pp.157-76).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Lyons,J.(1968).Introduction to theoretical linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons,J.(1977).Semantics:Vol.2.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons,J.(1989).Semantic ascent;a neglected aspect of syntactic typology.In D.Arnold,et al.(Eds.) Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar(pp.153-86).Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Mahlberg,M.(2003).The textlinguistic dimension of corpus linguistics:The support function of English general nouns and its theoretical implications.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,8,97-108.
Mahlberg,M.(2005).English general nouns:A corpus theoretical approach.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Martin,J.R.(1985/1989).Factual writing:exploring and challenging social reality.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Martin,J.R.(1992).English text:System and structure.Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Martin,J.R.(1995a).Text and clause:Fractal resonance.Text,15,5-42
Martin,J.R.(1995b).Interpersonal meaning,persuasion and public discourse:Packing semiotic punch.Australian Journal of Linguistics 15,33-67.
Martin,J.R.(1996).Types of structure:deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text.In M.Hoey,and Scott D.(Eds.),Computational and Conversational Discourse:Burning Issues—an Interdisciplinary Account(pp.39-66).Heidelberg:Springer.
Martin,J.R.(1997).Analyzing genre:Functional parameters.In C.Frances and J.Martin (Eds.),Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school(pp.3-39).London:Cassell.
Martin,J.R.(2000a).Beyond exchange:Appraisal systems in English.In S.Hunstonand and G.Thompson(Eds.),Evaluation in texts:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse(pp.142-75).Oxford University Press.
Martin,J.R.(2000b).Factoring out exchange:Types of structure.In M.Coulthard(Ed.), Working with dialogue(pp.19-40).Tubingen:Niemeyer.
Martin,J.R.(2001).Writing history:construing time and value in discourses of the past.In M.Schleppergrell and C.Colombi(Eds.),Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages(pp.87-118).Mahwah,N J:Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Martin,J.R.and Rose,D.(2003).Working with discourse:Meaning beyond the clause.London:Continuum.
Martin,J.R.and White,P.(2005).The language of evaluation:Appraisal in English.New York:Palgrave Machmillan.
McIntosh,A.(1966).As you like it:a grammatical clue to character.In A.McIntosh and M.A.K.Halliday(Eds.).Patterns of language:Papers in general,descriptive and applied linguistics(pp.70-82).London:Longman.
Melrose,R.(2003).'Having things both ways':Grammatical metaphor in a systemic-functional model of language.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Tavemiers,L.Ravelli (Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:Views from systemic functional linguistics(pp.417-42).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Menzel,P.(1975).Semantics and syntax in complementation.The Hague:Mouton.
Miao Xingwei,(2007).Evaluative enhanced thematic construction in English.Shandong Foreign Languages Education,2,54-57.
Midtgarden,T.(2002).Iconic aspect of language and language use:Peirce's work on iconicity revisited.Semiotica 139,227-44.
Miller,G.(1956).The magical number seven,plus or minus two:Some limits on our capacity for processing information.The Psychological Review,63,81-97.
Montague,R.(1979).Formal philosophy.New Heaven:Yale University Press.
Murphy,G.L.(2002).The big book of concepts.Cambridge:MIT Press.
Nerlich,B.(1990).Change in language.Whitney,Breal and Wegener.London:Routledge.
Newmeyer,F.J.(1998).Language form and language function.Cambridge:MIT Press.
Nicholas,D.(2000).Assessing information needs:Tools,techniques and concepts for the Internet age.London:Aslib.
Ochs,E.(ed.)(1989).The pragmatics of affect.Special issue of Text,9,3.
Olson,D.(1994).The world of paper:The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Painter,C.(2003).Developing attitude:An ontogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL.Text,23,183-210.
Palmer,F.R.(1990).Modality and the English modals,(2nd ed.).London:Longman.
Parson,G.(1996).The development of the concept of Cohesive Harmony.In M.Berr,et al.(Eds.),Meaning and form:Sstemic Functional interpretations(pp.585-99).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Petofi,J.(1974).Towards an empirically motivated grammatical theory of verbal texts.In J.Petofi and Rieser(Eds.),Studies in text grammar(pp.205-75).Dordrecht:Reidel.
Philipps,M.(1983).Lexical macrostructure in science text.Birmingham:University of Birmingham.
Philipps,M.(1985).Aspects of text structure:An investigation of the lexical organization of text.Amsterdam:North-Holland.
philipps,M.(1989).The lexical structure of text.Birmingham:English Language Research,University of Birmingham.
Pike,K.and Pike,E.(1977).Grammatical analysis.Dalas:Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University or Texas at Arlington.
Poutsma,H.(1927).A grammar of late modern english(2nd ed.).Groningen:Nordboff.
Quirk,R.,et al.(1985).A comprehensive grammar of the English language.London:Longman Group Limited.
Radden,G.(1992).The cognitive approach to natural language.In M.Putz(Ed.),Noun classes and categorization(pp.53-61).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Ravelli,L.(2003).Renewal of connection:Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical.In A.Vandenbergen,M.Taverniers,L.Ravelli(Eds.),Grammatical metaphor:Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics(pp.37-64).Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Reddy,M.(1979).The conduit metaphor.In A.Ortony,(Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp.284-324).Cambridge:Cambridge the University Press.
Reddy,M.(1993).The conduit metaphor:A case of frame conflict in our language about language:In A.Ortony(Ed.),Metaphor and thought,(2nd ed.)(pp.164-220).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Rieser,H.(1978).On the development of text grammar.In W.Dressler(ed.),Current trends in text linguistics(pp.6-20).Berlin:Gruyter.
Rosch,E.(1973).On the internal structure of pereeptual and semantic categories.In T.Moore,(Ed.),Cognitive development and the acquisition of language(pp.114-44).New York:Academic Press.
Rosch,E.(1975).Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology,General,104,193-233.
Rosch,E.(1978).Principles of categorization.In E.Rosch and B.Lloyed(Eds.),Cognition and Categorization(pp.27-48).Hillsdale/N.J.:Lawrence Edbaum.
Rosen,G.(2001).Abstract object.In E.Zalta(Ed.),The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.(Fall 2001 ed.).(URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2001/entries/abstract-objects/)
Saussure,F.(1983/1916).Course in general linguistics.(trans.Roy Harris).London:Duckworth.
Schmid,H.J.(1999).Cognitive effects of shell nouns.In K.Hock,A.Kibirk and L.Noordman(Eds.),Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics:Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference,Amsterdam,July 1997(pp.111-132).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Schmid,H.J.(2000).English abstract nouns as conceptual shells—from corpus to cognition.New York:Gruyter.
Schmid,H.J.(2001).'Presupposition can be a bluff':How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers.Journal of Pragmatics,33,1529-1552.
Scott,M.and Thompson,G.(2001).Patterns of text:In honour of Michael Heoy.London:Benjamins.
Sinclair,J.(1966),Beginning the study of lexis.In C.E.Bazcll et al(Eds.),In memory of J.R.Firth(pp.410-13).London:Longrnan.
Sinclair,J.(1991).Corpus,collocation,concordance.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Sinclair,J.(1998).The lexical item.In E.Weigand(Ed.),Contrastive lexical semantics(pp.1-24).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Sinclair,J.(1999).A way with common words.In H.Hasselgard and S.Oksefjell(Eds.),Out of corpora.Studies in honour of Stig Johansson(pp.157-79).Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Sinclair,J.(2004).Trust the Text.London:Routledge.
Sinclair,J.1987.Collocation:a progress report[A].In R.Steel and T.Threadgold(Eds.),Language topics:An international collection of papers by colleagues,students and admirers of Professor Michael Halliday to honour him on his retirement:Vol.2(pp.319-331).Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Stubbs,M.(2001).Words and phrases.Corpus studies of lexical semantics.Oxford:Blackwell.
Stuessy,F.(1993).Plant taxonomy.The systematic evaluation of comparative data.New York:Columbia University Press.
Sweetser,E.(1999).Compositionality and blending:Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework.In T.Janssen and G.Redeker(Eds.),Cognitive linguistics:Foundations,scope and methodology(pp.129-62).Berlin:Gruyter.
Tang Qingye,(2005).Packet Nouns and Information Packaging in Discourse,PhD thesis.Xiamen University.
Taylor,J.R.(2002).Cognitive grammar.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tennant,N.(1997).On the necessary existence of numbers.Nous,31,127-41.
Thompson,G.(1996).Introducing functional grammar.London:Edward Arnold.
Townsend,D.and Beaver,T.(2001).Sentence comprehension:The integration of habits and rules.MA:The MIT Press.
Tsui,A.B.M.1991.Sequency rules and coherence in discourse.Journal of Pragmatics,15,111-29.
Tuggy,D.(1996).The thing is that people talk that way.The question is is why?.In E;H.Casad(Ed.),Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods.The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics(pp.713-52).New York:G-ruyter.
Tversky,B.(1990).Where partonomies and taxonomies meet.In S.L.Tsohatzidis(Ed.),Meanings and prototypes.Studies on linguistic categories(pp.334-44).Oxford:Routledge.
Tyler,A.and Evans,V.(2003).The semantics of English prepositions:Spatial scenes,embodied meaning and cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer,F.and Schimd,H.J.(1996).An introduction to cognitive linguistics.London:Longman.
Vendler,Z.(1967).Linguistics in philosophy.New York:Cornell University Press.
Vendler,Z.(1968).Adjectives and nominalizations.The Hague:Mouton.
Ventola,E.(1987).The structure of social interaction:A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters.London:Frances Printer.
Waugh,L.(1994).Degree of Iconicity in Lexicon.Journal of Pragmatics,22,55-70.
Webber,B.L.(1991).Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis.Language and Cognitive Processes,6,107-35.
Wee,L.(2002).The semiotic metaphor:.The conduit metaphor in Singapore's language policy.Journal of Language and Politics,1,199-220.
Wierzbica,A.(1985).Lexicography and conceptual analysis.Ann Arbor:Karoma Publishers.
Winter,E.(1974).Replacement as a function of repetition:A study of some of its principle features in the clause relations of contemporary English,PhD thesis,University of London.
Winter,E.(1968).Some aspects of cohesion.In Sentence and clause in scientific English,report of the research project 'The Linguistic Prosperities of Scientific English'.London:University College London,Department of General Linguistics.
Winter,E.(1971).Connection in science material:a proposition about the semantics of clause relations.In Center for information on language teaching papers and reports,741-52.London:Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research for British Association for Applied Linguistics.
Winter,E.(1977).A clause-relational approach to English texts.In Instructional Science,6,1-92.
Winter,E.(1978).A look at the role of certain words in information structure.In K.P.Jones and V.Horsnell(Eds.),Informatics 3,proceedings of a conference held by the Aslib Co-ordinate Indexing Group,1975.London:Aslib.
Winter,E.(1992).The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analyzing the information of a fund-raising letter(pp.131-70).In W.C.Man and S.A.Thompson,(Eds.),Discourse descriptions.Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yang,Huizhong.(2002).An introduction to corpus linguistics.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zalta,E.(1983).Abstract objects:An introduction to axiomatic metaphysics.Dordrecht:D Reidd.
Zorkoczy,P.(1983).Information technology:An introduction.New York:Knowledge Industry Publication,Inc.