Cover not available
Part of
Theme in English and German: A corpus-based contrastive analysis of clause openings in original and translated texts
Jonas Freiwald
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 112] 2023
► pp. 257–270

References

Admoni, Wladimir. 1970. Der deutsche Sprachbau, 3rd edn, revised and extended. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Ahearn, Laura M. 2001. Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1998. Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. In Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies [Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 24], Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 115–43. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1981. Formen der «Herausstellung» im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen [Linguistische Arbeiten 106]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Thomas Hestbæk, Helm Petersen, Uwe & Smedegaard, Flemming. 2001. Sproget som ressource: Dansk systemisk funktionel lingvistik i teori og praksis. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies. In Text and Technology, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager [Benjamins Translation Library 18], Harold Somers (ed.), 175–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, Tom. 2014. Analysing Power in Language: A Practical Guide. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartoń, Kamil. 2018. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.10.0. 〈[URL]〉 (30 September 2020).
Bassola, Péter & Schwinn, Horst. 2016. Markierte Vorfeldbesetzungen im Deutschen. In Variation im europäischen Kontrast: Untersuchungen zum Satzanfang im Deutschen, Französischen, Norwegischen, Polnischen und Ungarischen, Martine Dalmas, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Horst Schwinn (eds), 229–59. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor. 2010. Abandoning the notion of “Translation-inherent” explicitation: Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures 11(1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Bergljot & Solfjeld, Kåre. 2014. Discourse role guiding clause types and position in translation. In Adverbials in Use: From Predicative to Discourse Functions, Laure Sarda, Shirley Carter-Thomas, Benjamin Fagard & Michael Charolles (eds), 267–96. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Beneš, Eduard. 1971. Die Besetzung der ersten Position im deutschen Aussagesatz. In Fragen der strukturellen Syntax und der kontrastiven Grammatik, Hugo Moser (ed.), 160–82. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
. 1973. Thema-Rhema-Gliederung und Textlinguistik. In Studien zur Texttheorie und zur Deutschen Grammatik: Festgabe für Hans Glinz zum 60. Geburtstag, Horst Sitta & Klaus Brinker (eds), 42–62. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia & Zanettin, Federico. 2004. When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In Translation Universals [Benjamins Translation Library 48] Anna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki (eds), 51–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, Margaret. 1987. The functions of place-names. Leeds Studies of English 18: 71–88.Google Scholar
. 1989. Thematic options and success in writing. In Language and Literature: Theory and Practice. A Tribute to Water Grauberg, Joanna M. Channell, Christopher Butler & Richard A. Cardwell (eds), 62–78. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
. 1995. Thematic options and success in writing. In Ghadessy (ed.), 55–84.Google Scholar
. 1996. What is Theme? – A(nother) personal view. In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations: Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday, Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin Fawcett & Huang Guowen (eds), 3–64. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. (Also published as Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.)Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1973. Regeln für die Intonation deutscher Sätze. In Untersuchungen über Akzent und Intonation im Deutschen, 3rd edn, 99–201. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bisiada, Mario. 2018. The editor’s invisibility. Target 30(2): 288–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, Hennig. 1971. Die Deutsche Sprache: Gestalt und Leistung, 2nd edn, revised and extended. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burchardt, Aljoscha, Erk, Katrin, Frank, Anette, Kowalski, Andrea, Padó, Sebastian and Pinkal, Manfred. 2009. Using FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: Annotation, representation, and automation. In Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications [Trends in linguistics. Studies and Monographs 200], Hans C. Boas (ed.), 209–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarel, Alice. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of French. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 77–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, Martin, James R. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (eds). 2004. Language Typology: A Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 253]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic: Symposium on Subject and Topic (University of California, Santa Barbara, 1975), Charles N. Li (ed.), 26–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1996. ‘Markedness’ and ‘Universals’: From the Prague School to typology. In Multiple Perspectives on the Historical Dimensions of Language, Kurt R. Jankowsky (ed.), 15–21. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Crompton, Peter. 2006. The effect of position on the discourse scope of adverbials. Text & Talk 26(3): 245–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, David A. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9(1): 11–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneš, František. 1964. Téma // (Základ) // Východisko výpovědi: [Theme // (Foundation) // Starting point of the utterance]. Slovo a Slovesnost 25(2): 148–49.Google Scholar
. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, František Daneš (ed.), 106–28. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, F. 1997. Marked Theme as a heuristic for analysing text-type, text and genre. In Applied Languages: Theory and Practice in ESP, Jordi Piqué & David J. Viera (eds), 45–79. Valencia: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8(2): 181–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3): 449–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika. 1996. Passive perspectives; different preferences in English and German: A result of parameterized processing. Linguistics 34: 591–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doms, Stefan, de Clerck, Bernard and Vandepitte, Sonia. 2016. Non-human agents as subjects in English and Dutch: A corpus-based translation study. In Atypical Predicate-Argument Relations [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33], Thierry Ruchot & Pascale Van Praet (eds), 87–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Angela. 1991. An alternative approach to Theme: A systemic functional perspective. Word 42(2): 119–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drach, Erich. 1963. Grundgedanken der Deutschen Satzlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Duff, Alan. 1981. The Third Language: Recurrent Problems of Translation into English. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 1989. Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1994. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd edn, revised. Stuttgart: Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engel, Ulrich. 1970. Regeln zur Wortstellung [Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 5]. Mannheim: IDS.Google Scholar
. 1974. Syntaktische Besonderheiten der deutschen Alltagssprache. In Gesprochene Sprache: Jahrbuch 1972 [Sprache der Gegenwart 26], Hugo Moser (ed.), 199–228. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
. 1988. Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2004. Deutsche Grammatik: Neubearbeitung. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1990a. Discourse and Grammar - Focussing and Defocussing in English. Tubingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990b. Fokuskonstruktionen im Deutschen und Englischen. In Kontrastive Linguistik [Forum Angewandte Linguistik 19], Claus Gnutzmann (ed.), 69–83. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Etzensperger, Jürg. 1979. Die Wortstellung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache als Forschungsobjekt: Mit einer kritisch referierenden Bibliographie [Studia Linguistica Germanica 15]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evert, Stephanie & Neumann, Stella. 2017. The impact of translation direction on characteristics of translated texts: A multivariate analysis for English and German. In Empirical Translation Studies, Gert de Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 47–80. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Robin. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicating Mind [Exeter Linguistic Studies 3]. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
. 2007. The many types of ‘Theme’ in English: Their syntax, semantics and discourse functions. 〈[URL]〉 (25 September 2020).
. 2008. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics Through the Cardiff Grammar: An Extension and Simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2008. The expression of non-alignment in British and German political interviews. Functions of Language 15(1): 35–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Johnson, Christopher R. & Petruck, Miriam R. L. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964a. From comparative word-order studies (Thoughts on V. Mathesius’ conception of the word-order system in English compared with that in Czech). Brno Studies in English 4: 111–128.Google Scholar
. 1964b. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. In Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1, Josef Vachek (ed.), 267–80. Prague: Académie Tchécoslovaque des Sciences.Google Scholar
. 1987. On the delimitation of the Theme in functional sentence perspective. In Functionalism in Linguistics [Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 20], René Dirven & Vilém Fried (eds), 137–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. On some basic problems of functional sentence perspective. In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 167–88. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Francis, Gill. 1990. Theme in the Daily Press. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 4: 51–87.Google Scholar
Frank, Austin. 2014. Mer-Utils.R. 〈[URL]〉 (30 September 2020).
Frawley, William. 1984. Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, William Frawley (ed.), 159–75. Newark DE: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Freiwald, Jonas. 2016. You say Theme, I say Thema: A corpus-based approach to Theme in English and German from an SFL perspective. Staatsarbeit, RWTH Aachen University.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1981. On the status of Theme: Arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum 6(1): 1–38.Google Scholar
1995a. A personal view of Theme. In Ghadessy (ed.), 1–19.Google Scholar
1995b. Patterns of information in initial position in English. In Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday, Peter H. Fries & Michael Gregory (eds), 47–66. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
1995c. Themes, methods of development, and texts. In Hasan & Fries (eds), 317–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Theme and new in written English. In Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications, Tom Miller (ed.), 230–243. Washington DC: United States Information Agency.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. & Francis, Gill. 1992. Exploring Theme: Problems for research. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 45–60.Google Scholar
García García, Marco, Primus, Beatrice & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2018. Shifting from animacy to agentivity. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1–2): 25–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garretson, Gregory. 2004. Coding practices used in the project optimal typology of determiner phrases. 〈[URL]〉 (30 September 2020).
Gellerstam, Martin. 1996. Translations as a source for cross-linguistic studies. In Languages in Contrast: Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994 [Lund Studies in English 88], Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 53–62. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1995. Thematic development and its relationship to registers and genres. In Ghadessy (ed.), 129–46.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1995. Thematic Development in English Texts. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen & Gao, Yanjie. 2000. Thematic organization in parallel texts: Same and different methods of development. Text 20(4): 461–488.Google Scholar
Gómez-González, María Ángeles. 2001. The Theme-Topic Interface: Evidence from English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götze, Lutz & Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2002. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache: Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Gütersloh: Wissen Media Verlag.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1990. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In On Language: Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 40–70. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimes, Joseph Evans. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. Look and see. Language 43(4): 937–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haftka, Brigitta. 1978. Bekanntheit und Neuheit als Kriterien für die Anordnung von Satzgliedern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 15: 157–64.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2000. OV is more basic than VO. In The Derivation of VO and OV [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31], Peter Svenonius (ed.), 45–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1989. Some notes on thematics, topic, and typology. In Text and Discourse Connectedness: Proceedings of the Conference on Connexity and Coherence, Urbino, July 16–21, 1984 [Studies in Language Companion Series 16], Emel Sözer, János S. Petőfi & Maria-Elisabeth Conte (eds), 53–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967a. Notes on transitivity and Theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967b. Notes on transitivity and Theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1968. Notes on transitivity and Theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics 4(2): 179–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1970. Language structure and language function. In New Horizons in Linguistics, John Lyons (ed.), 140–65. Harmonsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
1976. Theme and information in the English clause. In Halliday: System and Function in Language: Selected Papers, Gunther Kress (ed.), 174–88. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, David J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holcroft (eds), 57–79. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1st edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1991. Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 30–43. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1993. The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles Darwin’s the Origin of Species . In Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power [Pittsburgh Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture], Michael A. K. Halliday |& James R. Martin (eds), 86–105. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1998. On the grammar of pain. Functions of Language 5(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Greaves, William S. 2008. Intonation in the Grammar of English. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & McDonald, Edward. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 305–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia. 2011. Between normalization and shining-through. In Multilingual Discourse Production: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 12], Svenja Kranich (ed.), 133–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Neumann, Stella. 2012. Corpus enrichment, representation, exploitation, and quality control. In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds), 35–52. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Neumann, Stella & Steiner, Erich. 2007. Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 7(2): 241–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya & Fries, Peter H. 1995. On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 1997. Sentence openings in English and Norwegian. In Corpus-Based Studies in English: Papers from the 17th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Magnus Ljung (ed.), 3–20. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1998. Thematic structure in translation between English and Norwegian. In Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies [Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 24], Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 145–67. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2000. English multiple Themes in translation. In Contrastive Studies in Syntax [Copenhagen Studies in Language 25], Alex Klinge (ed.), 11–38. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2004. Thematic choice in English and Norwegian. Functions of Language 11(2): 187–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Corpus-based contrastive studies: Beginnings, developments and directions. Languages in Contrast 20(2), 184–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1992. Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 196–219. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner–place–time. Language Variation and Change 11(3): 231–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heidolph, Karl Erich, Flämig, Walter & Motsch, Wolfgang. 1981. Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Heilmann, Arndt, Serbina, Tatiana, Freiwald, Jonas & Neumann, Stella. 2020. Animacy and agentivity of subject Themes in English-German translation. Lingua 102813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula. 1981. Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 2019a. Explikationen für ‘normale Betonung’ und ‘normale Wortstellung’. In Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik: Gesammelte Schriften von Tilman N. Höhle, Stefan Müller, Marga Reis & Frank Richter (eds), 107–191. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
2019b. Topologische felder. In Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik: Gesammelte Schriften von Tilman N. Höhle, Stefan Müller, Marga Reis & Frank Richter (eds), 7–89. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalization in Halliday’s Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24(1): 137–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Further remarks on Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Matthiessen and Martin. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 75–129.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1986. Systemic Grammar: Review of an Introduction to Functional Grammar by M.A.K. Halliday, and Systemic Linguistics by C.S. Butler. Linguistics 24: 791–815.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 1997. Using the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus: A corpus for contrastive analysis and translation studies. In International Conference on Practical Applications in Language Corpora: Łódź, Poland, 10–14 April 1997: Proceedings, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Patrick J. Melia (eds), 282–96. Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kast, Marlene. 2012. Variation within the grammatical function ‘subject’ in English-German and German- English translations. In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds), 147–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1980. Chomsky on meaning. Language 56(1): 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 2001. Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-Based Study. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kies, Daniel. 1988. Marked Themes with and without pronominal reinforcement: Their meaning and distribution in discourse. In Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systemically-Inspired Approaches, Erich Steiner & Robert Veltman (eds), 47–75. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Kim, Mira. 2007. A Discourse Based Study on Theme in Korean and Textual Meaning in Translation. PhD dissertation, Macquarie University.
Kim, Mira & Huang, Zhi. 2012. Theme choices in translation and target readers’ reactions to different Theme choices. T&I Review 2: 79–111.Google Scholar
Kim, Mira & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2015. Ways to move forward in translation studies: A textual perspective. Target 27(3): 335–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, Henry W. 1970. Some systemic means of functional sentence perspective in English and German. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 8(2): 103–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner. 2011. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, 8th edn, revised. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts, 2nd edn, revised. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Königs, Karin. 2011. Übersetzen Englisch – Deutsch: Lernen mit System, 3rd edn, revised. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Korner-Nievergelt, Franzi, Roth, Tobias, von Felten, Stefanie, Guelat, Jérôme, Almasi, Bettina & Korner-Nievergelt, Pius. 2015. Bayesian Data Analysis in Ecology Using Linear Models with R, BUGS and Stan. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee. 2017. The effects of editorial intervention: Implications for studies of the features of translated language. In Empirical Translation Studies, Gert de Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 113–55. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee & van Rooy, Bertus. 2012. Register and the features of translated language. Across Languages and Cultures 13(1): 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin A. 2010. Variation in English and German Nominal Coreference: A Study of Political Essays. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. In Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, & S. Philosoph (eds), 236–287. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasch, Alexander. 2016. Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen [Sprache und Wissen (SuW) 25]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1991. The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 8–29. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Li, Suqin. 2015. A description of the Theme structure of Bai clause. OJML 5(6): 528–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindeberg, Ann-Charlotte. 1985. Abstraction levels in student essays. Text 5: 327–346.Google Scholar
Liu, Xiangjun & Yang, Xiaohu. 2013. Thematic progression in English–Chinese translation of argumentative classics: A quantitative study of Francis Bacon’s ‘Of Studies’ and its 11 Chinese translations. Perspectives 21(2): 272–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helve. 1993. Subjects and thematic roles in English and Norwegian. Norsk Lingvistik Tidsskrift: NLT 11: 105–124.Google Scholar
Lötscher, Andreas. 1983. Satzakzent und funktionale Satzperspektive im Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R. 1983. Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kate. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 45–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Grammaticalising ecology: The politics of baby seals and kangaroos. In Semiotics, Ideology, Language [Sydney Studies in Society and Culture 3], Terry Threadgold, E. A. Grosz, Gunther Kress & Michael A. K. Halliday (eds), 225–68. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture.Google Scholar
1989. Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1992. Theme, method of development and existentiality: The price of reply. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 147–83.Google Scholar
2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Tagalog. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 255–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R., Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Painter, Clare. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém. (1939) 1975. O tak zvaném aktuálním členění věty: (On the so-called functional sentence perspective]. In Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Susumu Kuno (ed.), 467–80. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1992. Interpreting the textual metafunction. In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 37–81. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
1995a. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
1995b. Theme as an enabling resource in ideational knowledge construction. In Thematic Development in English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 20–55. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Bateman, John A. 1991. Systemic Linguistics and Text Generation: Experience from Japanese and English. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Martin, James R. 1991. A response to Huddleston’s review of Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 5–74.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Theme and prospection in written discourse. In Text and Technology, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 95–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Corpora, universals and interference. In Translation Universals [Benjamins Translation Library 48], Anna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki (eds), 65–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Universal tendencies in translation. In Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, Gunilla von Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds), 32–48. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mode, Donatien. 1987. Syntax des Vorfelds: Zur Systematik und Didaktik der deutschen Wortstellu. [Germanistische Linguistik 74]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. 〈[URL]〉 (30 September 2020). DOI logo
Müller, Stefan, Reis, Marga & Richter, Frank. 2019. Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik: Gesammelte Schriften von Tilman N. Höhle, 2nd edn, revised. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Neumann, Stella. 2003. Textsorten und Übersetzen: Eine Korpusanalyse englischer und deutscher Reiseführer. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2012. Register-induced properties of translations. In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds), 191–209. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Contrastive Register Variation: A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 200]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Neumann, Stella & Hansen-Schirra, Silvia. 2012. Corpus methodology and design. In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds), 21–33. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York NY: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene Albert. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene Albert & Taber, Charles R. 1969. Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bibelübersetzung. London: Weltbund der Bibelgesellschaften.Google Scholar
Niemietz, Paula, Neumann, Stella & Freiwald, Jonas. 2017. Shifts in Theme and subject realization in English-German translation. In Challenging Boundaries in Linguistics: Systemic Functional Perspectives, Stella Neumann, Rebekah Wegener, Jennifer Fest, Paula Niemietz & Nicole Hützen (eds), 331–357. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Mick. 2008a. Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for Text and Image Annotation. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technologies Demo Session – HLT ’08, Jimmy Lin (ed.), 13–16. Morristown NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. The UAM CorpusTool: Software for Corpus Annotation. In Applied Linguistics Now: Understanding Language and Mind: La Lingüística Aplicada Actual: Comprendiendo El Lenguaje Y La Mente, Carmen M. Bretones Callejas, José F. F. Sánchez, José R. Ibáñez Ibáñez, María E. García Sánchez, Cortés de los Ríos, María Enriqueta, María Sagrario Salaberri Ramiro, María Soledad Cruz Martínez, Nobel A. Perdu Honeyman & Blasina Cantizano Márquez (eds), 1433–48. Almería: Universidad de Almería.Google Scholar
Oettinger, Anthony G. 1960. Automatic Language Translation: Lexical and Technical Aspects, with Particular Reference to Russian [Harvard Monographs in Applied Science 8]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1968. Deutsche Grammatik, 5th edn, Vol. 3. Halle: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 〈[URL]〉 (30 April 2023).
Rashidi, Linda S. 1992. Towards an understanding of the notion of Theme: An example from Dari. In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 189–204. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Rørvik, Sylvi. 2004. Thematic progression in translation of fiction from English to Norwegian. In Translation and Corpora: Selected Papers from the Göteborg Symposium 18–19 October 2003, Karin Aijmer & Hilde Hasselgård (eds), 149–61. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Rose, David. 2001. Some variations in Theme across languages. 〈[URL]〉 (30 September 2020).
. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Pitjantjatjara. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 479–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1992. Conditionals as topics in discourse. Linguistics 30(1): 165–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbina, Tatiana. 2015. A Construction Grammar Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts: A Corpus-Based Study. PhD dissertation, RWTH Aachen University.
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1998. Western Linguistics. An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Singmann, Henrik, Bolker, Ben, Westfall, Jake & Aust, Frederik. 2017. Afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. 〈[URL]〉 (30 September 2020).
Smirnova, Elena & Mortelmans, Tanja. 2010. Funktionale Grammatik: Konzepte und Theorien. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics 2: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Erich. 2001. Translations English-German: Investigating the relative importance of systemic contrasts and the text-type “Translation”. SPRIKreports. Reports from the project Languages in Contrast (Språk i kontrast).Google Scholar
Steiner, Erich & Ramm, Wiebke. 1995. On Theme as a grammatical notion for German. Functions of Language 2(1): 57–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Erich & Teich, Elke. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of German. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 139–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2014. Prepositional inanimates in Dutch: A paradigmatic case of differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text: A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts [Text, Translation, Computational Processing 5]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Japanese. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 185–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thai, Minh Duc. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Vietnamese. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 397–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2006. Theme in text. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 12, Keith Brown (ed.). 2nd ed, 14 Vols, 658–668. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Unfolding Theme: The development of clausal and textual perspectives on Theme. In Continuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective, Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds), 671–696. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2014. Introducing Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Thompson, Susan. 2009. Theme, subject and the unfolding of text. In Text Type and Texture: In Honour of Flo Davies, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds), 45–69. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1978. Modern English from a typological point of view: Some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte 54: 19–35.Google Scholar
Thomson, Elizabeth A. 2005. Theme unit analysis: A systemic-functional treatment of textual meanings in Japanese. Functions of Language 12(2): 151–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond, 2nd edn, revised. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Translating hybrid political texts. In Analysing Professional Genres [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 74], Anna Trosborg (ed.), 145–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Uszkoreit, Hans. 1987. Word Order and Constituent Structure in German. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Uzonyi, Pál & Dabóczi, Viktória. 2016. Quantitative Korpusuntersuchungen zur Phrasenstruktur von deutschen und ungarischen linken Feldern. In Variation im europäischen Kontrast: Untersuchungen zum Satzanfang im Deutschen, Französischen, Norwegischen, Polnischen und Ungarischen, Martine Dalmas, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Horst Schwinn (eds), 53–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria. 1985. Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a ‘Minority’ Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vasconcellos, Muriel Havel. 1985. Theme and Focus: Cross-Language Comparison via Translations from Extended Discourse. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
. 2008. Text and translation: The role of Theme and information. Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 27: 45–66.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2004. Initial and final position for adverbial clauses in English: The constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics 42(4): 819–853. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation [Benjamins Translation Library 11]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 2014. Sentence-initial adverbials in written texts: On discourse functions and cognitive motivations. In Adverbials in Use: From Predicative to Discourse Functions, Laure Sarda, Shirley Carter-Thomas, Benjamin Fagard & Michael Charolles (eds), 103–32. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda. 1982. Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure. Semiotica 38 (3–4): 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. 1993. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Whittaker, Rachel. 1995. Theme, processes and the realization of meanings in academic articles. In Thematic Development in English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 105–28. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Yan, Fang, McDonald, Edward & Musheng, Cheng. 1995. On Theme in Chinese: From clause to discourse. In Hasan & Fries (eds), 235–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carletta, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Nikitina, Tatiana, M. O’Connor, Catherine & Wasow, Tom. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In DiscAnnotation ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Bonnie Webber (Ed.), 118–125. Stroudsburg PA: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar