Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French

From syntax to lexis and discourse

| Université catholique de Louvain
Hardbound – Forthcoming
ISBN 9789027208460 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book – Ordering information
ISBN 9789027260116 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Situated at the interface between corpus linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics, this volume focuses on conjunctive markers expressing contrast in English and French. The frequency and placement patterns of the markers are analysed using large corpora of texts from two written registers: newspaper editorials and research articles. The corpus study revisits the long-standing but largely unsubstantiated claim that French requires more explicit markers of cohesive conjunction than English and shows that the opposite is in fact the case. Novel insights into the placement preferences of English and French conjunctive markers are provided by a new approach to theme and rheme that attaches more importance to the rheme than previous studies. The study demonstrates the significant benefits of a combined corpus and Systemic Functional Linguistics approach to the cross-linguistic analysis of cohesion.
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 99]  Expected May 2021.  xvii, 432 pp. + index
Publishing status: In production
© John Benjamins
Table of Contents
This is a provisional table of contents, and subject to changes.
List of tables
List of figures
List of abbreviations
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Defining the key constructs
Chapter 3. Corpus-based contrastive approaches to conjunctive markers
Chapter 4. Systemic Functional Linguistics, corpus linguistics and the textual metafunction
Chapter 5. Data and methodology
Chapter 6. Beyond automatic extraction: Semantic disambiguation and syntactic segmentation
Chapter 7. Frequency and patterns of use of English and French conjunctive markers of contrast
Chapter 8. Placement patterns of English and French conjunctive adjuncts of contrast
Chapter 9. General conclusion
References
Appendices
Appendix 1. List of newspapers and academic journals included in the corpus
Appendix 2. Individual syntactic patterning of English and French conjunctive markers of contrast
Appendix 3. Non-pruned Classification and Regression Trees emerging from the analysis of English and French conjunctive adjunct placement
References

References

Aarts, Bas
2000 Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and fuzzy tree fragments. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (eds), 5–14. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Adam, Jean-Michel
2008 La linguistique textuelle: Introduction à l’analyse textuelle des discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
2008 Comparable and parallel corpora. In Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds), 275–292. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt
1996 Introduction. In Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 11–16. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
2000 The English-Swedish Parallel Corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (eds), 15–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, Altenberg, Bengt & Johansson, Mats
1996 Text-based contrastive studies in English. Presentation of a project. In Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 73–85. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Lewis, Diana
2017 Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
2011 Pragmatic markers. In Discursive Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 8], Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alonso Belmonte, Isabel
2007 Newspaper editorials and comment articles: a “Cinderella” genre? RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 1: 1–9.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt
1984 Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38(1): 20–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986 Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In English in Speech and Writing. A Symposium, Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäckland (eds), 13–40. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
1998 Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1999 Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2002 Concessive connectors in English and Swedish. In Information Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 21–43. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2006 The function of adverbial connectors in second initial position in English and Swedish. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 11–37. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2007 The correspondence of resultive connectors in English and Swedish. NJES: Nordic Journal of English Studies 6(1). http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/2077​/4521 (4 September 2020).Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt & Aijmer, Karin
2002 Zero translations and cross-linguistic equivalence: Evidence from the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus. In From the COLT’s Mouth … and Others’. Language Corpora Studies in Honour of Anna-Brita Stenström, Leiv Egil Breivik & Angela Hasselgren (eds), 19–41. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt & Granger, Sylviane
2002 Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. In Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 7], Bengt Altenberg & Sylviane Granger (eds), 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt & Tapper, Marie
1998 The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learner’s written English. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 80–93. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ansary, Hasan & Babaii, Esmat
2005 The generic integrity of newspaper editorials: A systemic functional perspective. RELC Journal 36(3): 271–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald
1977 Deux “mais” en français? Lingua 43: 23–40.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Nigel
2005 Translation, Linguistics, Culture: A French-English Handbook. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex
2003 Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh & Demberg, Vera
2012 Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), 2669–2684.Google Scholar
Astington, Eric
1983 Equivalences. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
1993 Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Text and Technology, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1995 Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7(2): 223–243. CrossrefGoogle 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.), 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Balažic Bulc, Tatjana & Gorjanc, Vojko
2015 The position of connectors in Slovene and Croatian student academic writing: A corpus-based approach. In Meaning Making in Text, Sonja Starc, Carys Jones & Arianna Maiorani (eds), 51–71. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ballard, Michel
1995 La traduction de la conjonction “and” en français. In Relations discursives et traduction, Michel Ballard (ed.), 221–293. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Banks, David
2002 Systemic functional linguistics as a model for text analysis. ASp. La revue du GERAS 35–36: 23–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 A Systemic Functional Grammar of French. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Banks, David, Eason, Simon & Ormrod, Janet
2009 La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Becher, Viktor
2011 When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target 23(1): 26–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2010 Corpus linguistics and systemic functional linguistics: Interpersonal meaning, identity and bonding in popular culture. In New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation, Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds), 237–266. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2013 A parallel corpus approach to investigating semantic change. In Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 54], Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 103–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bell, David
2007 Sentence-initial “and” and “but” in academic writing. Pragmatics 17(2): 183–201.Google Scholar
Benamara, Farah & Taboada, Maite
2015 Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. In Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, 147–152. Denver CO: Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berk, Richard A.
2016 Statistical Learning from a Regression Perspective. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret
1996 What is theme? A(nother) personal view. In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations, Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds), 1–64. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret, Thompson, Geoff & Hillier, Hilary
2014 Theme and variations. In Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68], María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Francisco Gonzálvez García (eds), 107–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bestgen, Yves
2017 Getting rid of the Chi-square and Log-likelihood tests for analysing vocabulary differences between corpora. Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics 22: 33–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1995 Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2004 Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In New Media Language, Jean Aitchison & Diana Lewis (eds), 169–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2001 Register variation: A corpus approach. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany
2010 Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1): 2–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999 The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bilger, Mireille & Cappeau, Paul
2013 Une conjonction qui subordonne rarement: Le cas de “alors que.” In Morphologie, syntaxe et sémantique des subordonnants, Colette Bodelot (ed.), 259–273. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses universitaires Blaise Pascal.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1989 Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of “but.” Linguistics and Philosophy 12(1): 15–37.Google Scholar
1992 Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2004 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bloor, Thomas & Bloor, Meriel
2004 The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Juliane House & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bolívar, Adriana
2002 The structure of newspaper editorials. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), 276–294. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bolton, Kingsley, Nelson, Gerald & Hung, Joseph
2002 A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2): 165–182.Google Scholar
Boularès, Michèle & Frérot, Jean-Louis
2017 Grammaire progressive du français. Niveau avancé. Paris: Clé International.Google Scholar
Bourgoin, Charlotte
2017 The role of the English it-cleft and the French c’est-cleft in research discourse. Discours (21): 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bourmayan, Anouch, Loiseau, Yves, Rimbert, Odile & Taillandier, Isabelle
2017 Grammaire essentielle du français. Niveau B2. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne
1999 Exploring the potential of corpora for raising language awareness in student translators. Language Awareness 8(3-4): 160–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Corpus-based applications for translator training: Exploring the possibilities. In Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 169–183. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo, Friedman, Jerome, Olshen, Richard & Stone, Charles
1984 Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Burchfield, Robert W.
2004 Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher
2003 Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories: Part 2: From Clause to Discourse and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series 64]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S.
2004 Corpus studies and functional linguistic theories. Functions of Language 11(2): 147–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, David, Fahey, Rhondda & Feez, Susan
2000 Using Functional Grammar. An Explorer’s Guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven
2017 English “so” and Dutch “dus” in a parallel corpus: An investigation into their mutual translatability. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres, Karin Aijmer & Diana Lewis (eds), 33–61. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Caffarel, Alice
2006 A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: From Grammar to Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, Martin, James R. & Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M.
2004 Language Typology: A Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 253]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caffarel-Cayron, Alice & Rechniewski, Elizabeth
2014 Exploring the generic structure of French editorials from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics. Journal of World Languages 1(1): 18–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Lynn & Marcu, Daniel
2001 Discourse tagging reference manual. ISI technical report ISI-TR-545.
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael
2006 Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Carter-Thomas, Shirley
2002 Theme and information structure in French and English: A contrastive study of journalistic clefts. In 14th Euro-International Systemic Functional Workshop - EISFW 2002, C.A.M. Gouveia, C. Lopes da Costa, E. Ribeiro Pedro, L. Azuaga & S. Barcelos (eds). Lisbon: University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, Zufferey, Sandrine & Meyer, Thomas
2013 Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives by looking at their translation: The translation-spotting technique. Dialogue & Discourse 4(2): 65–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, Zufferey, Sandrine, Meyer, Thomas & Popescu-Belis, Andrei
2011 How comparable are parallel corpora? Measuring the distribution of general vocabulary and connectives. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora: Comparable Corpora and the Web (BUCC ‘11), 78–86. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Castagnoli, Sara
2009 Regularities and Variations in Learner Translations: A Corpus-based Study of Conjunctive Explicitation. PhD dissertation, Università di Pisa.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Larsen-Freeman, Diane
1999 The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Boston MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 25–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1982 Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, Deborah Tannen (ed.), 35–53. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chalker, Sylvia
1996 Linking Words. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Chang, Yu-Ying & Swales, John
1999 Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, Christopher N. Candlin & Ken Hyland (eds), 145–167. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, Patrick
1992 Grammaire du sens et de l’expression. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Charolles, Michel & Vigier, Daniel
2005 Les adverbiaux en position préverbale: Portée cadrative et organisation des discours. Langue française 148(4): 9–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1998 Contrastive Functional Analysis [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Thomas
2011 Cohesion: A Discourse Perspective. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chuquet, Hélène & Paillard, Michel
1987 Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction anglais-français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
2017 Glossaire de linguistique contrastive. Anglais-français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob
1988 Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1992 A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155–159.Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla & Moreno, Ana
2005 Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. In Directions in Applied Linguistics. Essays in Honour of Robert B. Kaplan, Paul Bruthiaux, Dwight Atkinson, William Eggington, William Grabe & Vaidehi Ramanathan (eds), 153–164. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan
1999 The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System 27(1): 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. In How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies Corpus Linguistics 12], John Sinclair (ed.), 67–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan & Biber, Douglas
2000 Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds), 56–73. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cosme, Christelle
2004 Towards a corpus-based cross-linguistic study of clause combining. Methodological framework and preliminary results. BELL: Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures 2: 199–224.Google Scholar
2006 Clause combining across languages: A corpus-based study of English-French translation shifts. Languages in Contrast 6(1): 71–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008a A corpus-based perspective on clause linking patterns in English, French and Dutch. In “Subordination” versus “Coordination” in Sentence and Text [Studies in Language Companion Series, 98], Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds), 89–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2008b Clause Linking across Languages. A Corpus-based Study of Coordination and Subordination in English, French and Dutch. PhD dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain.
Cotter, Colleen
2003 Prescription and practice. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4(1): 45–74.Google Scholar
Craggs, Richard & McGee Wood, Mary
2005 Evaluating discourse and dialogue coding schemes. Computational Linguistics 31(3): 289–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crewe, W.J.
1990 The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal 44(4): 316–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine
2017 Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French: Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2): 242–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency: Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 286]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Zufferey, Sandrine
2015 Using a unified taxonomy to annotate discourse markers in speech and writing. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (isa-11), Harry Bunt (ed.), 14–22. London: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Crismore, Avon, Markkanen, Raija & Steffensen, Margaret
1993 Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10(1): 39–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Cate & Oppenheim, Charles
2006 A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. Journal of Documentation 62(4): 428–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Csüry, István
2001 Le champ lexical de “mais”: Étude lexico-grammaticale des termes d’opposition du français contemporain dans un cadre textologique. Debrecen: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.Google Scholar
2006 L’identification d’une discipline: Difficultés et perspectives. Commentaires sur les différentes approches d’un objet pluridisciplinaire. In Des discours aux textes: Modèles et analyses, Philippe Lane (ed.), 103–124. Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep
2003 Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 35(7): 1069–1093. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep & Bach, Carme
2007 Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies 9(2): 149–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, Michael
2009 The theme/rheme distinction and the method of development of written French text. In La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks, Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds), 43–66. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Dafouz-Milne, Emma
2008 The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(1): 95–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danlos, Laurence, Colinet, Margot & Steinlin, Jacques
2015a FDTB1, première étape du projet French Discourse Treebank: Repérage des connecteurs de discours en corpus. Discours 17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b FDTB: Annotation des connecteurs de discours dans un corpus français. Rapport technique. Paris: ALPAGE, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Danlos, Laurence & Roze, Charlotte
2011 Hiérarchie des relations de discours dans le FDTB. Rapport technique. Paris: ALPAGE, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Das, Debopam & Taboada, Maite
2013 Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Shan Luo (ed.). Victoria: University of Victoria.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert & Dressler, Wolfgang U.
1981 Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
de Carvalho, Paulo
2005 Phrase nominale, ‘parties du discours’ et théorie syntaxique. Syntaxe et Sémantique 6: 87–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2013 On the focusing function of focusing adverbs: A discussion based on Italian data. Linguistik Online 44(4). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania
2015 Evaluative meaning and cohesion: The structuring function of evaluative meaning in scientific writing. Discours 16: 3–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth
2004 Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: the case of “puisque” and “aangezien.” In Language, Culture and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 251–270. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2014 “So very fast very fast then” Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds), 151–178. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Fagard, Benjamin
2011 “Alors” between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18(1): 29–56.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Lefèvre, Nathalie & Bestgen, Yves
1999 The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design 1(1): 39–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Pander Maat, Henk
2003 A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch. Lexicon, Grammar, Discourse, Arie Verhagen & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 175–199. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Sanders, Ted J.M.
2002 The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing 15(7): 739–757.Google Scholar
Delaere, Isabelle & De Sutter, Gert
2017 Variability of English loanword use in Belgian Dutch translations: Measuring the effect of source language, register, and editorial intervention. In Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 81–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean
2013 La traduction raisonnée. Manuel d’initiation à la traduction professionnelle de l’anglais vers le français. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Demberg, Vera, Asr, Fatemeh & Scholman, Merel
2017 How compatible are our discourse annotations? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations. ArXiv e-prints. http://​arxiv​.org​/abs​/1704​.08893 (4 September 2020).
Dixon, Robert & Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2011 The Semantics of Clause Linking: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela
1991 An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective. Word 42(2): 119–143.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Jarle & Oksefjell Ebeling, Signe
2013 Patterns in Contrast [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 58]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne
1994 An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
2004 An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Elgemark, Anna
2017 To the Very End. A Contrastive Study of N-Rhemes in English and Swedish Translations. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.
Enkvist, Nils
1973 Theme dynamics and style: An experiment. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 5(12): 127–135.Google Scholar
1978 Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence. In Cohesion and Semantics, Jan-Ola Östman (ed.), 109–128. Åbo: Åbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
2007 Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Espunya, Anna
2007 Informativeness and explicit linking in the translation of the English V-ing free adjuncts into Catalan. Languages in Contrast 7(2): 143–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
2005 Elusive connectives. A case study on the explicitness dimension of discourse coherence. Linguistics 43(1): 17–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Ramm, Wiebke, Solfjeld, Kåre & Behrens, Bergljot
2005 Coordination, discourse relations, and information packaging - cross-linguistic differences. In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (SEM05), Michel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu (eds), 85–93. Biarritz, France.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin
2000 A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 206]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2007 The many types of “Theme” in English: Their semantic systems and their functional syntax. 1–105. http://​www​.cardiff​.ac​.uk​/chri​/researchpapers​/humanities​/papers1​-10​/4Fawcett​.pdf (4 September 2020).
Field, Andy, Miles, Jeremy & Field, Zoë
2012 Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Field, Yvette & Yip, Lee
1992 A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal 23(1): 15–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, Rudolf
1974 The use of a corpus in contrastive studies. In Trends in Kontrastiver Linguistik, Horst Raabe (ed.), 51–66. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan
1992 Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1995 A contribution on a panel discussion on rheme. In Thematic Development of English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 213–222. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti, Dahl, Trine & Kinn, Torodd
2006 Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 148]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John & Forest, Richard
2015 Signalling Nouns in Academic English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad
1991 Polyfunctionality and the semantics of adversative conjunctions. Multilingua 10(1): 72–92.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1998 Contrastive discourse markers in English. In Discourse Markers. Description and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 301–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1999 What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 931–952.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce & Malamud-Makowski, Monica
1996 English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers. Language Sciences 18(3): 863–881. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein & Johansson, Stig
2002 The semantics and pragmatics of the Norwegian concessive marker “likevel”: Evidence from the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus. Language and Computers 40(1): 81–101.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter
1994 On theme, rheme and discourse goals. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), 229–249. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1995 A personal view of theme. In Thematic Development in English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 1–19. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Gallagher, John
1995 L’effacement des connecteurs adversatifs et concessifs en français moderne. In Relations discursives et traduction, Michel Ballard (ed.), 201–220. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker
2012 Contrastive analysis: Theories and methods. In Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science: Linguistic Theory and Methodology, Bernd Kortmann & Johannes Kabatek (eds), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 53–62. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2010 Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Glaud, Ludivine, Loiseau, Yves & Merlet, Elise
2015 Grammaire essentielle du français. Niveau B1. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Gliemann, Marie-Françoise, Bonenfant, Joëlle, Bazelle-Shahmaei, Bernadette & Akyüz, Anne
2015 Focus: Grammaire du français. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew
2004 Corpus linguistics, Systemic Functional Grammar and literary meaning: A critical analysis of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 46: 115–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
2001 The Theme–Topic Interface: Evidence from English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 71] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González Rodríguez, María José
2007 On the interpretation of ideology through comment articles: Two views in opinion discourse. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 1: 49–68.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane
In press Phraséologie et lexicographie bilingue: Apports croisés des corpus monolingues et parallèles. In Autour de l’énonciation, de la lexicologie, de la morphophonologie et de la contrastivité: Langues, discours, textes et corpus, Sylvie Hanote & Raluca Nita (eds). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
1996 From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 37–51. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
1997 On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. In Studies in English Language and Teaching, Jan Aarts, Inge de Mönnink & Herman Wekker (eds), 185–198. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1998 The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 3–18. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2003 The corpus approach: A common way forward for Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. In Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 17–29. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2010 Comparable and translation corpora in cross-linguistic research. Design, analysis and applications. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University 2: 14–21.Google Scholar
2014 A lexical bundle approach to comparing languages: Stems in English and French. Languages in Contrast 14(1): 58–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Tracking the third code: A cross-linguistic corpus-driven approach to metadiscursive markers. In The Corpus Linguistics Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87], A. Cermakova & Michaela Mahlberg (eds), 185–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane & Lefer, Marie-Aude
2013 Enriching the phraseological coverage of bilingual dictionaries: The respective contribution of monolingual and bilingual corpus data. In Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 54], Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(eds) 2020 The Complementary Contribution of Comparable and Parallel Corpora to Crosslinguistic Studies. Special issue of Languages in Contrast 20(2).Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Lerot, Jacques & Petch-Tyson, Stephanie
2003 Preface. In Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 9–13. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane & Tyson, Stephanie
1996 Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15(1): 17–27.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany
2015 Linguistic Variation in Research Articles [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney
1969 Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1988 Syntactic devices for compression in English. In Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th Birthday, Josef Klegraf, Dietrich Nehls & Gerhard Nickel (eds), 3–10. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Grégoire, Maïa & Thievenaz, Odile
2017 Grammaire progressive du français. Niveau intermédiaire. Paris: Clé International.Google Scholar
Grellet, Françoise
1991 Apprendre à traduire: Typologie d’exercices et de traduction. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice & Goosse, André
1995 Nouvelle grammaire française: Grammaire. Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar
2011 Le bon usage. Bruxelles: De Boeck - Duculot.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2006 Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2): 109–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 What is corpus linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass 3(5): 1225–1241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grieve, James
1996 Dictionary of Contemporary French Connectors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grote, Brigitte, Lenke, Nils & Stede, Manfred
1997 Ma(r)king concessions in English and German. Discourse Processes 24(1): 87–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guillemin-Flescher, Jacqueline
1981 Syntaxe comparée du français et de l’anglais: Problèmes de traduction. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Gutwinski, Waldemar
1976 Cohesion in Literary Texts. A Study of some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hadermann, Pascale & Degand, Liesbeth
2009 Structure narrative et connecteurs temporels en français langue seconde. In La langue en contexte, Eva Havu, Juhani Härmä, Mervi Helkkula, Meri Larjavaara & Ulla Tuomarla (eds), 19–34. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva
1994 Topic/Focus and related research. In The Prague School of Structural and Functional Linguistics [Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 41], Philip A. Luelsdorff (ed.), 245–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1967 Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1970 Language structure and language function. In New Horizons in Linguistics, John Lyons (ed.), 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1971 Language in a social perspective. Educational Review 23(3): 165–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1977 Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In Grammars and Descriptions: Studies in Text Theory and Text Analysis, Teun van Dijk & János Petöfi (eds), 176–225. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1978 Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1985 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder 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
1992 Language as system and language as instance: The corpus as a theoretical construct. In Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991, Jan Svartvik (ed.), 61–77. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005 Computational and Quantitative Studies, Jonathan J. Webster (ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2006 Afterwords. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 293–299. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1989 Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & James, Zoe
1993 A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. In Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse, John Sinclair, Michael Hoey & Gwyneth Fox (eds), 93–128. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M.
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
2004 Connectives as a translation problem. In An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Werner Koller, Frank Harald, Paul Armin, Norbert Greiner, Jose Lambert & Fritz Paul (eds), 562–572. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hannay, Mike & Gómez-González, María de los Ángeles
2012 Thematic parentheticals in Dutch and English. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 6: 99–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Neumann, Stella
2003 The challenges of working with multilingual corpora. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multilingual Corpora, Linguistics Requirements and Technical Perspectives. Corpus Linguistics Conference 2003, Stella Neumann & Silvia Hansen-Schirra (eds), 27–34. Lancaster.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Neumann, Stella & Steiner, Erich
2012 Cross-linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hartnett, Carolyn
1995 The pit after the theme. In Thematic Development of English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 198–212. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya
1984 Coherence and cohesive harmony. In Understanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language, and the Structure of Prose, James Flood (ed.), 181–219. Newark DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2011 Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3603–3623. https://​doi:10​.1016​/j​.pragma​.2011​.09​.002Google Scholar
2012 Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication 32(3): 182–204. https://​doi:10​.1016​/j​.langcom​.2012​.04​.008Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde
2004a Thematic choice in English and Norwegian. Functions of Language 11(2): 187–212.Google Scholar
2004b The role of multiple themes in cohesion. In Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 120], Karin Aijmer & Anna-Brita Stenström (eds), 65–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010a Contrastive analysis/contrastive linguistics. In The Routledge Linguistics Encyclopaedia, Kirsten Malmkjaer (ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010b Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2014a Additive conjunction across languages: “dessuten” and its correspondences in English and French. Oslo Studies in Language 6(1): 69–89.Google Scholar
2014b Discourse-structuring functions of initial adverbials in English and Norwegian news and fiction. Languages in Contrast 14(1): 73–92.Google Scholar
Hawes, Thomas & Thomas, Sarah
2012 Theme choice in EAP and media language. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(3): 175–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Roger & Towell, Richard
2001 French Grammar and Usage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hempel, Susanne & Degand, Liesbeth
2008 Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics 40(4): 676–693. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
He, Qingshun & Wen, Binli
2017 A corpus-based study of textual metaphor in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37(3): 265–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
He, Qingshun & Yang, Bingjun
2015 Absolute Clauses in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective: A Corpus-Based Study. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Faulhaber, Susen
2014 From collocations and patterns to constructions – An introduction. In Constructions, Collocations, Patterns, Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds), 1–8. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Herriman, Jennifer
2011 N-rhemes in English problem–solution texts. English Text Construction 4(1): 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herriman, Jennifer & Bostrom Aronsson, Mia
2009 Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. In Corpora and Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 33], Karin Aijmer (ed.), 101–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hervey, Sándor & Higgins, Ian
1992 Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method, French-English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2002 Thinking French Translation: A Course in Translation Method: French to English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoarau, Lucie
1997 Étude contrastive de la coordination en français et en anglais. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet, Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted J.M.
2018 Segmenting discourse: Incorporating interpretation into segmentation? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(2): 357–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoek, Jet & Zufferey, Sandrine
2015 Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. In Conference Proceedings 11th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, London, Harry Bunt (ed.), 39–45. Tilburg: Tilburg Centre for Cognition and Communication.Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet, Zufferey, Sandrine, Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted J.M.
2017 Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 121(Supplement C): 113–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael
1991 Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005 Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holtz, Monica
2007 Corpus-based analysis of verb/noun collocations in interdisciplinary registers. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2007. University of Birmingham, UK 27–30 July 2007, Matthew Davies, Paul Rayson, Susan Hunston & Danielsson Pernilla (eds). https://​www​.birmingham​.ac​.uk​/Documents​/college​-artslaw​/corpus​/conference​-archives​/2007​/14Paper​.pdf (4 September 2020).
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
2002 The Cambdrige Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
1999 “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan
2013 Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk 33(4-5): 614–640.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill
2000 Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1998 Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4): 437–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Jiang, Feng (Kevin)
2017 Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes 45: 40–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iruskieta, Mikel, da Cunha, Iria & Taboada, Maite
2014 A qualitative comparison method for rhetorical structures: identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 49(2): 263–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir
1983 A translation-based model of contrastive analysis. Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies 9: 171–178.Google Scholar
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita
2008 Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics 40(4): 646–675. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Sven
1964 Adverbial Positions in English. Uppsala: Studentbok.Google Scholar
James, Carl
1980 Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Janicki, Karol
1990 On the tenability of the notion “pragmatic equivalence” in contrastive analysis. In Further Insights into Contrastive Analysis [Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 30], Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 47–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna
2003 On translating “what is said”: Tertium comparationis in contrastive semantics and pragmatics. In Meaning Through Language Contrast, Vol. 2, Katarzyna Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (eds), 441–462. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig
1998 On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 3–24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2003 Contrastive linguistics and corpora. In Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 31–44. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2007 Seeing Through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2012 Cross-linguistic perspectives. In English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, Merjä Kytö (ed.), 45–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig & Hofland, Knud
1994 Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus. In Creating and Using English Language Corpora: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zürich 1993, Udo Fries, Gunnel Tottie & Peter Schneider (eds), 25–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig & Lysvåg, Per
1986 Understanding English Grammar: An Overview. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Robert B.
1966 Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16(1-2): 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Károly, Krisztina
2017 Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation: The Case of Hungarian-English News Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair
1996 A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
König, Ekkehard
2012 Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast 12(1): 3–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter
2000 Causal and concessive clauses: formal and semantic relations. In Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 341–360. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
1991 Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee
2017 The effects of editorial intervention: Implications for studies of the features of translated language. In Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 113–155. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee & van Rooy, Bertus
2012 Register and the features of translated language. Across Languages and Cultures 13(1): 33–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P.
1984 Tertium comparationis. In Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 301–312. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1990 Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin, Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania, Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina, Menzel, Katrien & Steiner, Erich
2017 English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for translation. In Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 265–311. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin & Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina
2014 Cohesive conjunctions in English and German: Systemic contrasts and textual differences. In Recent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora, Lieven Vandelanotte, Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens & Ditte Kimps (eds), 229–262. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2015 Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14(1): 258–288.Google Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin & Steiner, Erich
2012 Towards a comparison of cohesive reference in English and German: System and text. In Contrastive Discourse Analysis: Functional and Corpus Perspectives, Maite Taboada, Susana Doval Suarez & Elsa Gonzalez Alvarez (eds), 208–239. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
2013 Cohesive substitution in English and German: A contrastive and corpus-based perspective. In Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 54] Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 201–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kurokawa, David, Goutte, Cyril & Isabelle, Pierre
2009 Automatic detection of translated text and its impact on Machine Translation. Proceedings of the Twelfth Machine Translation Summit, Ottawa, August 26–30, 81–88. http://​www​.cs​.cmu​.edu​/~dkurokaw​/publications​/MTS​-2009​-Kurokawa​.pdf (4 September 2020).
Lado, Robert
1957 Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1971 If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langndoen (eds), 3–114. New York NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1988 Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010 Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English. In Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 165], Carsten Breul & Edward Göbbel (eds), 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice & Van Belle, William
1995 Connectives of contrast and concession in Dutch and French. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie 84(3): 397–418.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice & Vanderbauwhede, Gudrun
2016 Connecteurs et linguistique contrastive. Les marqueurs de discours “en effet”, “en fait”, “de fait”, “en réalité” et leurs pendants néerlandais. In Connexion et indexation. Ces liens qui lient le texte, Laure Sarda, Denis Vigier & Bernard Combettes (eds), 195–209. Lyon: ENS Editions.Google Scholar
Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina & Kunz, Kerstin
2014 Annotating cohesion for multilingual analysis. Proceedings of the 10th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, 57–64. Reykjavik: ACL/ISO.Google Scholar
Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina, Nedoluzhko, Anna & Kunz, Kerstin
2015 Across languages and genres: Creating a universal annotation scheme for textual relations. Proceedings of The 9th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, 168–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Tove
2017a The importance of, it is important that or importantly? The use of morphologically related stance markers in learner and expert writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(1): 57–84.Google Scholar
2017b A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes 48: 57–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lauridsen, Karen
1996 Text corpora and contrastive linguistics: which type of corpus for which type of analysis? In Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 63–71. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia
2010 Contrasting choices in clause-initial position in English and Spanish: A corpus-based analysis. In Thresholds and Potentialities of Systemic Functional Linguistics: Multilingual, Multimodal and Other Specialised Discourses, Elizabeth Swain (ed.), 49–68. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Arús, Jorge & Zamorano-Mansilla, Juan Rafael
2011 Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Laviosa, Sara
2009 Universals. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha (eds), 306–310. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Le Draoulec, Anne & Bras, Myriam
2006 Quelques candidats au statut de ‘connecteur temporel’. Cahiers de Grammaire 30: 219–237.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
2002 A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lefer, Marie-Aude
2009 Exploring Lexical Morphology across Languages: A Corpus-based Study of Prefixation in English and French Writing. PhD dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain.
Lefer, Marie-Aude & Cartoni, Bruno
2011 Prefixes in contrast: Towards a meaning-based contrastive methodology for lexical morphology. Languages in Contrast 11(1): 87–105.Google Scholar
Lefer, Marie-Aude & Grabar, Natalia
2015 Super-creative and over-bureaucratic: A cross-genre corpus-based study on the use and translation of evaluative prefixation in TED talks and EU parliamentary debates. Across Languages and Cultures 16: 187–208.Google Scholar
Lefer, Marie-Aude & Vogeleer, Svetlana
(eds) 2014 Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast. Special issue of Languages in Contrast 14(1).Google Scholar
Lefeuvre, Florence
1999 La phrase averbale en français. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Le Goffic, Pierre
1994 Grammaire de la phrase française. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1988 Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 181–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula
2010 Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 A focus on adverbial connectors: Connecting, partitioning and focusing attention in the history of English. Varieng: Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 8. http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/series​/volumes​/08​/lenker/ (4 September 2020).
2014 Knitting and splitting information: Medial placement of linking adverbials in the history of English. In Contact, Variation and Change in the History of English [Studies in Language Companion Series 159], Simone E. Pfenninger, Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja, Marianne Hundt & Daniel Schreier (eds), 11–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leroux, Agnès
2012 La relation inter-énonciative et le marquage syntaxique des relations de cause: Étude contrastive anglais-français. CORELA HS-10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia
2015 How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana
2005 Mapping adversative coherence relations in English and French. Languages in Contrast 5(1): 33–48. Crossref.Google Scholar
2006 Contrastive analysis of adversative relational markers using comparable corpora. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 139–153. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2009 Markers of concession in a contrastive perspective: evidence from an English/French comparable corpus. In Corpora and Discourse - and Stuff: Papers in Honour of Karin Aijmer, Rhonwen Bowen, Mats Mobärg & Sölve Ohlander (eds), 189–198. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Liu, Dilin
2008 Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 491–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loock, Rudy
2018 Using non-standard word order you should! A corpus-based approach to avoiding standardized word order in translated French. In Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference, 5th edn [CECL Papers 1], Sylviane Granger, Marie-Aude Lefer & Laura Aguiar de Souza Penha Marion (eds), 115–116. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Lores, Rosa
2004 On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes 23(3): 280–302. https://​doi​.org10​.1016​/j​.esp​.2003​.06​.001Google Scholar
Love, Alison
2004 Drawing on (a lot of) “Given”: One aspect of theme choice in newspaper editorials. In Text and Texture. Systemic Functional Viewpoints on the Nature and Structure of Text, David Banks (ed.). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lynch, Jack
2007 The English Language: A User’s Guide. Newburyport MA: Focus.Google Scholar
Macken, Lieve, De Clercq, Orphée & Paulussen, Hans
2011 Dutch Parallel Corpus: A balanced copyright-cleared parallel corpus. Meta 56(2): 374–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne
1995 Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43(2): 111–122.Google Scholar
Mann, William & Thompson, Sandra
1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Relational discourse structure: A comparison of approaches to structuring text by “contrast.” In Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, Shin Ja Hwang & William Merrifield (eds), 19–45. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Martel, Guylaine
1993 Les connecteurs contre-argumentatifs en anglais, en français et en espagnol: Une question d’usage. Langues et Linguistique 19: 151–165.Google Scholar
Martin, James R.
1983 Conjunction: The logic of English text. In Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts, János Petöfi & Emel Sözer (eds), 1–72. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
1992 English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2001 Cohesion and texture. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 35–53. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Rose, David
2007 Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian
1998 Discourse connectives, ellipsis and markedness. In The Pragmatics of Translation, Leo Hickey (ed.), 170–186. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2001 Translator behaviour and language usage: Some constraints on contrastive studies. Hermes 26: 65–80.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
2002 Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson, Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds), 235–319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2006 Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 103–142. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Thompson, Sandra
1988 The structure of discourse and “subordination.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds), 275–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
1999 Will “translationese” ruin a contrastive study? Languages in Contrast 2(2): 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Universal tendencies in translation. In Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, Gunilla M. Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds), 32–48. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McDonald, Daniel & Woodward-Kron, Robyn
2016 Member roles and identities in online support groups: Perspectives from corpus and systemic functional linguistics. Discourse & Communication 10(2): 157–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Wilson, Andrew
2001 Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Xiao, Richard
2007 Parallel and comparable corpora: What are they up to? In Incorporating Corpora: Translation and the Linguist, Gunilla M. Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds), 17–21. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard & Tono, Yukio
2006 Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meyer, David, Zeileis, Achim, Hornik, Kurt, Gerber, Florian & Friendly, Michael
2017 vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=vcd (4 September 2020).
Meyer, Thomas
2011 Disambiguating temporal-contrastive connectives for machine translation. In Proceedings of the ACL-HLT 2011 Student Session, 46–51. Portland OR.Google Scholar
Meyer, Thomas, Popescu-Belis, Andrei, Zufferey, Sandrine & Cartoni, Bruno
2011 Multilingual annotation and disambiguation of discourse connectives for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2011 Conference (SIGDIAL ‘11), 194–203. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mikhailov, Mikhail & Cooper, Robert
2016 Corpus Linguistics for Translation and Contrastive Studies: A Guide for Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, Donna & Johnson, Jane
2013 “Register-idiosyncratic” evaluative choice in Congressional debate. In Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 417–431. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Miller, Donna R. & Johnson, Jane
2014 Evaluative phraseological choice and speaker party/gender: A corpus-assisted comparative study of “register-idiosyncratic” meaning in Congressional debate. In Evaluation in Context [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 242], Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds), 345–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miltsakaki, Eleni, Dinesh, Nikhil, Prasad, Rashmi, Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie
2005 Experiments on sense annotations and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT), 9–10 December 2005, Barcelona, Spain.
Miltsakaki, Eleni, Prasad, Rashmi, Joshi, Aravind & Bonnie, Webber
2004 The Penn Discourse Treebank. In Proceedings of the 4th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. Lisbon, Portugal.
Morel, Mary-Annick
1996 La concession en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Morel, Mary-Annick & Danon-Boileau, Laurent
1998 Grammaire de l’intonation. L’exemple du français oral. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Moreno, Ana I.
1998 The explicit signaling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text 18(4): 545–585.Google Scholar
Mortier, Liesbeth & Degand, Liesbeth
2009 Adversative discourse markers in contrast: The need for a combined corpus approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 3–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Philippe, Vergez-Couret, Marianne, Prévot, Laurent, Asher, Nicholas, Farah, Benamara, Bras, Myriam, Le Draoulec, Anne & Vieu, Laure
2012 Manuel d’annotation en relations de discours du projet ANNODIS. Rapport technique. Toulouse: CLLE-ERSS.Google Scholar
Murray, John D.
1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition 25(2): 227–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. & Xuan, Winfred Wenhui
2016 A survey of studies in systemic functional language description and typology. Functional Linguistics 3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesbitt, Christopher & Plum, Guenther
1988 Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause complex in English. In New Developments in Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Application, Vol. 2, Robin Fawcett & David Young (eds), 6–38. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Neumann, Stella
2010 Quantitative register analysis across languages. In Thresholds and Potentialities of Systemic Functional Linguistics: Multilingual, Multimodal and Other Specialised Discourses, Elizabeth Swain (ed.), 85–113. Trieste: EUT Edizioni.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: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2013 Contrastive Register Variation. A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2014 Cross-linguistic register studies: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Languages in Contrast 14(1): 35–57.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1988 A Textbook of Translation. New York NY: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nome, Astrid & Hobæk Haff, Marianne
2011 Une analyse contrastive de “donc.” Oslo Studies in Language 3(1): 47–67.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Michael
2009 The UAM CorpusTool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. In Applied Linguistics Now: Understanding Language and Mind / La lingüística aplicada actual: Comprendiendo el lenguaje y la mente, Carmen M. Bretones Callejas, José Francisco Fernández Sánchez, José Ramón Ibáñez Ibáñez, María Elena García Sánchez, Mª Enriqueta Cortés de los Ríos, Sagrario Salaberri Ramiro, Mª Soledad Cruz Martínez, Nobel Perdú Honeyman, Blasina Cantizano Márquez (eds), 1433–1448. Almeria: Universidad de Almería.Google Scholar
Osborne, John
2008 Adverb placement in post-intermediate learner English: A contrastive study of learner corpora. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Szilvia Papp & María Belén Díez-Bedmar (eds), 127–146. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Øverås, Linn
1998 In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta 43(4): 557–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oversteegen, Leonoor
1997 On the pragmatic nature of causal and contrastive connectives. Discourse Processes 24(1): 51–85. https://​doi:10​.1080​/01638539709545007Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk & Degand, Liesbeth
2001 Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3): 211–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, Magali
2010 Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pekelder, Jan
2010 Le tertium comparationis en linguistique contrastive. Problèmes et méthodes. Linguistica Pragensia 20(1): 22–37.Google Scholar
Petukhova, Volha & Bunt, Harry
2009 Towards a multidimensional semantics of discourse markers in spoken dialogue. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS-8 ‘09), 157–168. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pit, Mirna
2007 Cross-linguistic analyses of backward causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Languages in Contrast 7(1): 53–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, Luke & Oswald, Frederick
2014 How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64(4): 878–912. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plum, Guenther & Cowling, Ann
1987 Social constraints on grammatical variables: Tense choice in English. In Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Vol. 2, Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold (eds), 281–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poncharal, Bruno
2005 Etude contrastive de la structuration du discours en anglais et en français dans des textes de sciences humaines. In Actes du Colloque “D’une langue à l’autre”: Besançon, 5-6-7 septembre 2002. Daniel Lebaud (ed.), 287–302. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
2007 Cohérence discursive en anglais et en français: Fonction des connecteurs dans la traduction. In Les connecteurs, jalons du discours, Agnès Celle, Stéphane Gresset & Ruth Huart (eds), 117–136. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Dinesh, Nikhil, Lee, Alan, Miltsakaki, Eleni, Robaldo, Livio, Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie
2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). Marrakech, Morocco.
Prasad, Rashmi, Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie
2010 Realization of discourse relations by other means: Alternative lexicalizations. In Coling2010: Poster Volume, 1023–1031. Beijing.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1997 On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse. In Directions in Functional Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series 36], Akio Kamio (ed.), 117–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quillard, Geneviève
1997 Étude de certaines différences dans l’organisation collective des textes pragmatiques anglais et français. Babel 43(4): 313–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1972 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramón García, Noelia
2002 Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies interconnected: The corpus-based approach. In Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies 1, Leona van Vaerenbergh (ed.), 393–406. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Ravelli, Louise
1995 A dynamic perspective: implications for metafunctional interaction and an understanding of Theme. In On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 40], Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter Fries (eds), 187–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
2008 R: A Language and Eenvironment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://​www​.R​-project​.org (28 September 2020).Google Scholar
Régent, Odile
1980 Approche comparative des discours de spécialité pour l’entraînement à l’anglais écrit. Mélanges Pédagogiques 1: 117–135.Google Scholar
1992 Pratiques de communication en médecine: Contextes anglais et français. Langages 26(105): 66–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 L’article scientifique: Un produit culturel. ASp. la revue du GERAS 5–6: 55–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rey, Joëlle
1999 Approche argumentative des textes scientifiques: La traduction de “or” en espagnol. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs 44(3): 411–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Christophe & Rioul, René
2001 Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Rivelin-Constantin, Eve
1992 La thématisation en français et en anglais: Une étude contrastive. In Linguistique contrastive et traduction, Vol. 1, Jacqueline Guillemin-Flescher (ed.), 159–204. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Rørvik, Sylvi & Egan, Thomas
2013 Connectors in the argumentative writing of Norwegian novice writers. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research. Looking Back, Moving Ahead. Proceedings of the First Learner Corpus Research Conference (LCR 2011), Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 401–410. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Rossette, Fiona
2007 Connecteurs, enchaînements discursifs et lisibilité en anglais: Quelques pistes de réflexion. In Les connecteurs, jalons du discours, Agnès Celle, Stéphane Gresset & Ruth Huart (eds), 11–42. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009 Thème, conjonction et cohésion: Corrélations entre les différents composants de la métafonction textuelle en français. In La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks, Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds), 9–42. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Roze, Charlotte, Danlos, Laurence & Muller, Philippe
2012 LEXCONN: A French Lexicon of Discourse Connectives. Discours 10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rubattel, Christian
1982 De la syntaxe des connecteurs pragmatiques. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 4: 37–61.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Elisabeth
1996 Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Relations and Their Expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruquet, Michel, Quoy-Bodin, Jean-Luc & Cayol, Micheline
1991 Comment dire? Raisonner à la française. Paris: Clé International.Google Scholar
Rysová, Magdalena & Rysová, Katerina
2014 The centre and periphery of discourse connectives. In 28th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 452–459. Phuket, Thailand.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, Kari
1996 New challenges for contrastive linguistics. In Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 17–36. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael
2008 How can lexicographers use a translation corpus? In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (UCCTS 2008), Richard Xiao, Lianzhen He & Ming Yue (eds). Zhejiang University, Hangzhou.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael & Oates, Sarah Louise
1999 Contrast and concession in French and English. Languages in Contrast 2(1): 27–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salkoff, Morris
1999 A French-English Grammar: A Contrastive Grammar on Translational Principles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J.M.
1997 Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 24(1): 119–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Biarritz, France.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J.M, Demberg, Vera, Hoek, Jet, Scholman, Merel, Asr, Fatemeh, Zufferey, Sandrine & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline
2018 Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (published online ahead of print 22 May). https://​www​.degruyter​.com​/view​/j​/cllt​.ahead​-of​-print​/cllt​-2016​-0078​/cllt​-2016​-0078​.xml (4 September 2020). Crossref
Sanders, Ted J.M & Spooren, Wilbert
2007 Discourse and text structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 916–943. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J.M, Spooren, Wilbert & Noordman, Leo
1992 Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15: 1–35.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
2006 Discourse. In An Introduction to Language and Linguistics, Ralph W. Fasold & Jeff Connor-Linton (eds), 169–203. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah & Hamilton, Heidi
2015 Introduction. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen, Heidi Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 1–7. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, Joost & Verhagen, Arie
1998 Conceptual dependency and the clausal structure of discourse. In Discourse and Cognition. Bridging the Gap, Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), 141–163. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Schmied, Josef
2009 Contrastive corpus studies. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds), 1140–1159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence
1999 Discourse markers. Lingua 107(3): 227–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike
2012 WordSmith Tools 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sharoff, Serge
2017 Corpus and systemic functional linguistics. In The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 533–546. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2004 Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Raoul & Frawley, William
1983 Conjunctive cohesion in four English genres. Text 3(4): 347–374.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert & Degand, Liesbeth
2010 Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2): 241–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Staples, Shelley, Egbert, Jesse, Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2015 Register variation. A corpus approach. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen, Heidi Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 505–525. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard
2003 Conversationalization in discourse: Stylistic changes in editorials of The Times between 1950 and 2000. In Determination of Information and Tenor in Texts: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse, Luuk Lagerwerf, Wilbert Spooren & Liesbeth Degand (eds), 115–124. Amsterdam & Munster: Stichting Neerlandistiek & Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Stoye, Hélène
2014 Les connecteurs contenant des prépositions en français: Profils sémantiques et pragmatiques en synchronie et diachronie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Struck, Herman R.
1965 The myth about initial conjunctions. The English Journal 54(1): 42–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite
2006 Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 38(4): 567–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In Discourse, of Course, Jan Renkema (ed.), 127–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Gómez-González, María de los Ángeles
2012 Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 6: 17–41.Google Scholar
Taglicht, Josef
1984 Message and Emphasis: On Focus and Scope in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Takagaki, Yumi
2011 Les plans d’organisation textuelle en français et en japonais: De la rhétorique contrastive à la linguistique textuelle. Rouen: Editions universitaires européennes.Google Scholar
Tankó, Gyula
2004 The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’ argumentative essays. In How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics12], John Sinclair (ed.), 157–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
2006 Collaborating Towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 146] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte
2008 What is corpus linguistics? What the data says. ICAME Journal 32: 179–200.Google Scholar
Teich, Elke
2003 Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009 Linguistic computing. In Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics, Michael A.K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds), 113–127. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2013 Choices in analysing choice: Methods and techniques for register analysis. In Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 417–431. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Teich, Elke, Eckart, Richard & Holtz, Monica
2006 Systemic Functional corpus resources: Issues in development and deployment. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Treebanks and Linguistic Theories Conference (TLT 06), 247–258. Prague.Google Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang
1996 Comparable or parallel corpora? International Journal of Lexicography 9(3): 238–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
2014 Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Hunston, Susan
2006a System and corpus: two traditions with a common ground. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 1–14. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2006b System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2008 Theme, subject and the unfolding of text. In Text Type and Texture, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds), 45–69. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Zhou, Jianglin
2001 Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds), 121–141. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tierney, Robert & Mosenthal, James
1983 Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English 17(3): 215–229.Google Scholar
Tizón-Couto, David
2012 Left Dislocation in English: A Functional-Discoursal Approach. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena
2001 Corpus Linguistics at Work [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Touratier, Christian
2006 Que faut-il entendre par “connecteur”? In La connexion et les connecteurs. La phrase existentielle, Christian Touratier & Jean-Marie Merle (eds), 19–40. Université de Provence. Provence.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine & Torres Cacoullos, Rena
2012 Discourse syntax. In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, José Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea & Erin O’Rourke (eds), 653–672. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trévise, Anne
1986 Is it transferable, topicalization? In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, Eric Kellerman & Michael Sharwood Smith (eds), 86–206. New York NY: Pergamon Institute of English.Google Scholar
Tucker, Gordon
2006 Systemic incorporation: On the relationship between corpus and systemic functional grammar. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 81–102. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2009 Towards a lexicogrammar of war: A corpus-based systemic functional investigation of the French lexical item “guerre.” In La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks, Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds), 195–222. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia & De Sutter, Gert
2013 Contrastive linguistics and translation studies. In Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 4, Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds), 36–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan
2012 From contrastive linguistics to linguistic typology. Languages in Contrast 12(1): 69–86. https://​doi:10​.1075​/lic​.12​.1​.05auwGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun
1979 Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 447–456.Google Scholar
Van Hoof, Henri
1989 Traduire l’anglais: Théorie et pratique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Van de Voorde, Katrien
1992 De deux à trois “mais”: Essai de vérification des approches d’Anscombre et Ducrot et de Blumenthal. Travaux de Linguistique 24: 57–81.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2000 Concession implies causality, though in some other space. In Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 361–380. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001 Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psychological Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], Ted J.M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds), 337–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean
1995 Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija
1992 Discourse functions of Adverbial Placement in English: Clause-initial Adverbials of Time and Place in Narratives and Procedural Place Descriptions. Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag.Google Scholar
2005 “Polls and surveys show”: Public opinion as a persuasive device in editorial discourse. In Persuasion across Genres: A Linguistic Approach [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 130], Elena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 153–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wang, Jianxin
2011 Contrastive Connectors in English and Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study. PhD dissertation, University of Auckland.
Westin, Ingrid
2002 Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
White, Lydia
1991 Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 7(2): 133–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, Henry G.
1978 Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Willems, Dominique, Defrancq, Bart, Colleman, Timothy & Noël, Dirk
2004 Contrastive Analysis in Language. Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wu, Canzhong
2009 Corpus-based research. In Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics, Michael A.K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds), 128–142. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard
2010a How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? A corpus-based study of translation universals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1): 5–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard & Yue, Ming
2009 Using corpora in translation studies: The state of the art. In Contemporary Corpus Linguistics, Paul Baker (ed.), 237–262. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Xi, Yan
2010 Cohesion studies in the past 30 years: Development, application and chaos. Language, Society and Culture 31: 139–147.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Donald W.
2003 A warning about the large-sample Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Understanding Statistics 2(4): 267–280. https://​doi:10​.1207​/S15328031US0204​_03Google Scholar
Zinn, Jens & McDonald, Daniel
2018 Risk in The New York Times (1987–2014). A Corpus-based Exploration of Sociological Theories. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zinsser, William K.
2001 On Writing Well, 25th Anniversary: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. New York NY: Collins.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael
1994 Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 22(6): 629–645. https://​doi:10​.1016​/0378​-2166(94)90033​-7Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine
2012 “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 44(2): 138–153. https://​doi:10​.1016​/j​.pragma​.2011​.09​.018Google Scholar
2016 Discourse connectives across languages: Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation. Languages in Contrast 16(2): 264–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Cartoni, Bruno
2012 English and French causal connectives in contrast. Languages in Contrast 12(2): 232–250.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Degand, Liesbeth
2017 Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2): 399–422.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, Degand, Liesbeth, Popescu-Belis, Andrei & Sanders, Ted J.M.
2012 Empirical validations of multilingual annotation schemes for discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 8th Joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, Harry Bunt (ed.), 77–84. Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Gygax, Pascal
2016 The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes 53(7): 532–555. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, Mak, Willem, Degand, Liesbeth & Sanders, Ted J.M.
2015 Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks. Second Language Research 31(3): 389–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Theoretical linguistics
Corpus linguistics
Syntax
Pragmatics
Discourse studies
Functional linguistics
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020055052