• Chunlan JinEmail author


As is known by the linguistic scholars, Chinese has always been regarded as a paratactic language as it differs from a hypotactic language as English. To a large degree, “paratactic” has been categorized into the typological fields in which such function words as conjunctions or prepositions are seldom required to denote logical and semantic relationships between different elements within sentences while in Chinese there is no explicit relationship has been applied lexically or logically when they can be comprehended from context or background.


  1. Bhatia, V. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica Revista de la Asociacion Europea de Lenguas para Fines Especificos, 3–19. Retrieved from
  2. Carroll, M., & von Stutterheim, C. (1993, January). The representation of spatial configurations in English and German and the grammatical structure of locative and anaphoric expressions. Linguistics, 31(6), 1011–1042.Google Scholar
  3. Coulthard, M., et al. (2000). Written discourse. Birmingham: The Centre for English Language Studies at University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  4. Dragunov, A. (1952). Untersuchungen zur Grammatik der modernen chinesischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (translated from Russian by W. Lippert).Google Scholar
  5. Dijk, V. (1998). Ideology. Preface VIII: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  6. Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  7. Fung, Y. I. (1960). A short history of Chinese philosophy. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  8. Hall, S. (1996). The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In D. Morley & K. H. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 25–46). London: Routledge (Earlier published in B. Matthews (Ed.). (1983). Marx: 100 years on (pp. 57–84). London: Lawrence and Wishart).Google Scholar
  9. Herrmann, T., & Grabowski, J. (1994). Sprechen: Psychologie der Sprach produktion. Heidelberg: Spektrum.Google Scholar
  10. Hu, Z. (1994). The cohesion and coherence of discourse. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Press.Google Scholar
  11. Huang, G. (1988). The essentials of text analysis. Hunan: Hunan Educational Press.Google Scholar
  12. Isocrates Speeches, English translated by George Norlin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  13. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The Effects of Readers’ Misconceptions on Comprehension of Scientific Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235–245.Google Scholar
  14. Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking from intention to articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Liu, M. (1992). English-Chinese contrastive studies and translation. Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Press.Google Scholar
  17. Liu, R. (1999). On English language teaching. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
  18. Murphy, G. L. (2004). The big book of concepts. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Plato Laws, English translated by R. G. Bury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967–8.Google Scholar
  20. Plato Republic, English translated by R. G. Bury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1967–8.Google Scholar
  21. Plato, Protagoras, English translated by R. G. Bury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1967–8.Google Scholar
  22. Wenguo, P. (1997/2002). Chinese-English contrastive compendium. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wenguo, P. (2002). Zi-centricity and Chinese language research. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East China University of Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations