Theme in English and German

A corpus-based contrastive analysis of clause openings in original and translated texts

image of Theme in English and German

This book represents a detailed discussion and corpus analysis of Theme in English and German originals and translations. The empirical results are based on thousands of clauses from four different registers, cover a variety of linguistic aspects including multiple Themes, marked Themes, participant roles, agency, and identifiability, and are tested statistically using regression analyses. The book sheds light on one of the most elusive concepts of the systemic functional linguistics framework, Theme, by comparing it with different approaches, related concepts, and realizations in different languages and by examining empirically different Theme models, contrastive differences, and translation effects. Given that Theme in English and German is realized formally by being the first clause constituent and is thus, effectively, a syntactic phenomenon, this monograph is not only relevant for functional linguists, but any interested in English and German word order differences and their effects on translations.


  1. Admoni, Wladimir
    1970Der deutsche Sprachbau, 3rd edn, revised and extended. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahearn, Laura M.
    2001 Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology30: 109–137. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altenberg, Bengt
    1998 Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. InCorpora 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]
  4. Altmann, Hans
    1981Formen der «Herausstellung» im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen [Linguistische Arbeiten 106]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111635286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111635286 [Google Scholar]
  5. Andersen, Thomas Hestbæk , Helm Petersen, Uwe & Smedegaard, Flemming
    2001Sproget som ressource: Dansk systemisk funktionel lingvistik i teori og praksis. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Mona
    1992In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1993 Corpus linguistics and translation studies. InText and Technology, Mona Baker , Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  8. 1995 Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target7(2): 223–243. 10.1075/target.7.2.03bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.2.03bak [Google Scholar]
  9. 1996 Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. InTerminology, 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. 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartlett, Tom
    2014Analysing Power in Language: A Practical Guide. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315851938
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851938 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bartoń, Kamil
    2018MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.10.0. 〈https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn〉 (30 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bassola, Péter & Schwinn, Horst
    2016 Markierte Vorfeldbesetzungen im Deutschen. InVariation 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. 10.1515/9783110444612‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110444612-008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bates, Douglas , Maechler, Martin , Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve
    2015 Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1): 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  14. Becher, Viktor
    2010 Abandoning the notion of “Translation-inherent” explicitation: Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures11(1): 1–28. 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Behrens, Bergljot & Solfjeld, Kåre
    2014 Discourse role guiding clause types and position in translation. InAdverbials 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]
  16. Bell , Roger T.
    1991Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Beneš, Eduard
    1971 Die Besetzung der ersten Position im deutschen Aussagesatz. InFragen der strukturellen Syntax und der kontrastiven Grammatik, Hugo Moser (ed.), 160–82. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1973 Thema-Rhema-Gliederung und Textlinguistik. InStudien 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]
  19. 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. InTranslation Universals [Benjamins Translation Library 48] Anna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki (eds), 51–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.05ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.05ber [Google Scholar]
  20. Berry, Margaret
    1987 The functions of place-names. Leeds Studies of English18: 71–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1989 Thematic options and success in writing. InLanguage 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]
  22. 1995 Thematic options and success in writing. In Ghadessy (ed.), 55–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1996 What is Theme? – A(nother) personal view. InMeaning 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]
  24. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad & Finegan, Edward
    1999Longman 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]
  25. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1973 Regeln für die Intonation deutscher Sätze. InUntersuchungen über Akzent und Intonation im Deutschen, 3rd edn, 99–201. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bisiada, Mario
    2018 The editor’s invisibility. Target30(2): 288–309. 10.1075/target.16116.bis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16116.bis [Google Scholar]
  27. Brinkmann, Hennig
    1971Die Deutsche Sprache: Gestalt und Leistung, 2nd edn, revised and extended. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Brown, Gillian & Yule, George
    1983Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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. InMultilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications [Trends in linguistics. Studies and Monographs 200], Hans C. Boas (ed.), 209–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110212976.3.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110212976.3.209 [Google Scholar]
  30. Caffarel, Alice
    2004 Metafunctional profile of the grammar of French. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 77–137. 10.1075/cilt.253.04caf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.04caf [Google Scholar]
  31. Caffarel, Alice , Martin, James R. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    (eds) 2004Language Typology: A Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 253]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.253
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253 [Google Scholar]
  32. Catford, John C.
    1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. InSubject 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]
  34. Croft, William
    1996 ‘Markedness’ and ‘Universals’: From the Prague School to typology. InMultiple Perspectives on the Historical Dimensions of Language, Kurt R. Jankowsky (ed.), 15–21. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Crompton, Peter
    2006 The effect of position on the discourse scope of adverbials. Text & Talk26(3): 245–79. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  36. Cruse, David A.
    1973 Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics9(1): 11–23. 10.1017/S0022226700003509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003509 [Google Scholar]
  37. Daneš, František
    1964 Téma // (Základ) // Východisko výpovědi: [Theme // (Foundation) // Starting point of the utterance]. Slovo a Slovesnost25(2): 148–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1974 Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. InPapers on Functional Sentence Perspective, František Daneš (ed.), 106–28. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111676524.106
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111676524.106 [Google Scholar]
  39. Davies, F.
    1997 Marked Theme as a heuristic for analysing text-type, text and genre. InApplied Languages: Theory and Practice in ESP, Jordi Piqué & David J. Viera (eds), 45–79. Valencia: Universitat de València.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. DeLancey, Scott
    1984 Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language8(2): 181–213. 10.1075/sl.8.2.05del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.8.2.05del [Google Scholar]
  41. Diessel, Holger
    2005 Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics43(3): 449–470. 10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449 [Google Scholar]
  42. Doherty, Monika
    1996 Passive perspectives; different preferences in English and German: A result of parameterized processing. Linguistics34: 591–643. 10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.591
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.591 [Google Scholar]
  43. Doms, Stefan , de Clerck, Bernard and Vandepitte, Sonia
    2016 Non-human agents as subjects in English and Dutch: A corpus-based translation study. InAtypical Predicate-Argument Relations [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33], Thierry Ruchot & Pascale Van Praet (eds), 87–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lis.33.04dom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.33.04dom [Google Scholar]
  44. Downing, Angela
    1991 An alternative approach to Theme: A systemic functional perspective. Word42(2): 119–143. 10.1080/00437956.1991.11435835
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1991.11435835 [Google Scholar]
  45. Drach, Erich
    1963Grundgedanken der Deutschen Satzlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Duff, Alan
    1981The Third Language: Recurrent Problems of Translation into English. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Dürscheid, Christa
    1989Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Eggins, Suzanne
    1994An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Eisenberg, Peter
    1994Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd edn, revised. Stuttgart: Metzler. 10.1007/978‑3‑476‑03546‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-03546-2 [Google Scholar]
  50. Engel, Ulrich
    1970Regeln zur Wortstellung [Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 5]. Mannheim: IDS.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1974 Syntaktische Besonderheiten der deutschen Alltagssprache. InGesprochene Sprache: Jahrbuch 1972 [Sprache der Gegenwart 26], Hugo Moser (ed.), 199–228. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 1988Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2004Deutsche Grammatik: Neubearbeitung. München: Iudicium.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Erdmann, Peter
    1990aDiscourse and Grammar - Focussing and Defocussing in English. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Erdmann, Peter
    1990b Fokuskonstruktionen im Deutschen und Englischen. InKontrastive Linguistik [Forum Angewandte Linguistik19], Claus Gnutzmann (ed.), 69–83. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Etzensperger, Jürg
    1979Die Wortstellung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache als Forschungsobjekt: Mit einer kritisch referierenden Bibliographie [Studia Linguistica Germanica 15]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110849295
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849295 [Google Scholar]
  57. Evert, Stephanie & Neumann, Stella
    2017 The impact of translation direction on characteristics of translated texts: A multivariate analysis for English and German. InEmpirical Translation Studies, Gert de Sutter , Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 47–80. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-003 [Google Scholar]
  58. Fawcett, Robin
    1980Cognitive 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]
  59. 2007 The many types of ‘Theme’ in English: Their syntax, semantics and discourse functions. 〈www.isfla.org/Systemics/Print/Papers/Fawcett-ThemePaperv3.pdf〉 (25 September 2020).
  60. 2008Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics Through the Cardiff Grammar: An Extension and Simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Fetzer, Anita
    2008 The expression of non-alignment in British and German political interviews. Functions of Language15(1): 35–63. 10.1075/fol.15.1.04fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15.1.04fet [Google Scholar]
  62. Fillmore, Charles J. , Johnson, Christopher R. & Petruck, Miriam R. L.
    2003 Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography16(3): 235–250. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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 English4: 111–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 1964b On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. InTravaux linguistiques de Prague 1, Josef Vachek (ed.), 267–80. Prague: Académie Tchécoslovaque des Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 1987 On the delimitation of the Theme in functional sentence perspective. InFunctionalism in Linguistics [Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 20], René Dirven & Vilém Fried (eds), 137–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/llsee.20.08fir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.20.08fir [Google Scholar]
  66. 1992 On some basic problems of functional sentence perspective. InAdvances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 167–88. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Francis, Gill
    1990 Theme in the Daily Press. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics4: 51–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Frank, Austin
    2014Mer-Utils.R. 〈https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aufrank/R-hacks/master/mer-utils.R〉 (30 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Frawley, William
    1984 Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. InTranslation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, William Frawley (ed.), 159–75. Newark DE: University of Delaware Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 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]
  71. Fries, Peter H.
    1981 On the status of Theme: Arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum6(1): 1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 1995a A personal view of Theme. In Ghadessy (ed.), 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 1995b Patterns of information in initial position in English. InDiscourse 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]
  74. 1995c Themes, methods of development, and texts. In Hasan & Fries (eds), 317–59. 10.1075/cilt.118.10fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.118.10fri [Google Scholar]
  75. 1997 Theme and new in written English. InFunctional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications, Tom Miller (ed.), 230–243. Washington DC: United States Information Agency.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Fries, Peter H. & Francis, Gill
    1992 Exploring Theme: Problems for research. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics5: 45–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. García García, Marco , Primus, Beatrice & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2018 Shifting from animacy to agentivity. Theoretical Linguistics44(1–2): 25–39. 10.1515/tl‑2018‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  78. Garretson, Gregory
    2004 Coding practices used in the project optimal typology of determiner phrases. 〈npcorpus.bu.edu/html/documentation/index.html〉 (30 September 2020).
  79. Gellerstam, Martin
    1996 Translations as a source for cross-linguistic studies. InLanguages 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]
  80. Ghadessy, Mohsen
    1995 Thematic development and its relationship to registers and genres. In Ghadessy (ed.), 129–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. (ed.) 1995Thematic Development in English Texts. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Ghadessy, Mohsen & Gao, Yanjie
    2000 Thematic organization in parallel texts: Same and different methods of development. Text20(4): 461–488.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Gómez-González, María Ángeles
    2001The Theme-Topic Interface: Evidence from English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.71 [Google Scholar]
  84. Götze, Lutz & Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B.
    2002Grammatik der deutschen Sprache: Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Gütersloh: Wissen Media Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1990 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InOn Language: Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 40–70. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Grimes, Joseph Evans
    1975The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110886474
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886474 [Google Scholar]
  87. Gruber, Jeffrey S.
    1967 Look and see. Language43(4): 937–947. 10.2307/411974
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411974 [Google Scholar]
  88. Gundel, Jeanette K.
    1988The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. New York NY: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Gundel, Jeanette K. , Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2): 274–307. 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  90. Haftka, Brigitta
    1978 Bekanntheit und Neuheit als Kriterien für die Anordnung von Satzgliedern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache15: 157–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Haider, Hubert
    2000 OV is more basic than VO. InThe Derivation of VO and OV [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31], Peter Svenonius (ed.), 45–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.31.03hai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.31.03hai [Google Scholar]
  92. Hakulinen, Auli
    1989 Some notes on thematics, topic, and typology. InText 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. 10.1075/slcs.16.08hak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.16.08hak [Google Scholar]
  93. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1967a Notes on transitivity and Theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics3(1): 37–81. 10.1017/S0022226700012949
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012949 [Google Scholar]
  94. 1967b Notes on transitivity and Theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics3(2): 199–244. 10.1017/S0022226700016613
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  95. 1968 Notes on transitivity and Theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics4(2): 179–215. 10.1017/S0022226700001882
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700001882 [Google Scholar]
  96. 1970 Language structure and language function. InNew Horizons in Linguistics, John Lyons (ed.), 140–65. Harmonsworth: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 1976 Theme and information in the English clause. InHalliday: System and Function in Language: Selected Papers, Gunther Kress (ed.), 174–88. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 1978Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 1979 Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. InFunction and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, David J. Allerton , Edward Carney & David Holcroft (eds), 57–79. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1st edn. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 1991 Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. InEnglish Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 30–43. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 1993 The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles Darwin’s the Origin of Species . InWriting 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]
  103. 1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 1998 On the grammar of pain. Functions of Language5(1): 1–32. 10.1075/fol.5.1.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.02hal [Google Scholar]
  105. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Greaves, William S.
    2008Intonation in the Grammar of English. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya
    1985Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    1999Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    2014Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  109. Halliday, Michael A. K. & McDonald, Edward
    2004 Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 305–96. 10.1075/cilt.253.08hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.08hal [Google Scholar]
  110. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia
    2011 Between normalization and shining-through. InMultilingual Discourse Production: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 12], Svenja Kranich (ed.), 133–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.12.07han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.12.07han [Google Scholar]
  111. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Neumann, Stella
    2012 Corpus enrichment, representation, exploitation, and quality control. InCross-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. 10.1515/9783110260328.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.35 [Google Scholar]
  112. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , Neumann, Stella & Steiner, Erich
    2007 Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast7(2): 241–65. 10.1075/lic.7.2.09han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.09han [Google Scholar]
  113. 2012Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110260328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  114. Hasan, Ruqaiya & Fries, Peter H.
    1995On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.118
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.118 [Google Scholar]
  115. Haspelmath, Martin
    2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics42(1): 25–70. 10.1017/S0022226705003683
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003683 [Google Scholar]
  116. Hasselgård, Hilde
    1997 Sentence openings in English and Norwegian. InCorpus-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]
  117. 1998 Thematic structure in translation between English and Norwegian. InCorpora 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]
  118. 2000 English multiple Themes in translation. InContrastive Studies in Syntax [Copenhagen Studies in Language 25], Alex Klinge (ed.), 11–38. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 2004 Thematic choice in English and Norwegian. Functions of Language11(2): 187–212. 10.1075/fol.11.2.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.11.2.03has [Google Scholar]
  120. 2010Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511676253
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676253 [Google Scholar]
  121. 2020 Corpus-based contrastive studies: Beginnings, developments and directions. Languages in Contrast20(2), 184–208. 10.1075/lic.00015.has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00015.has [Google Scholar]
  122. Hawkins, John A.
    1986A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 1992 Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation. InInformationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 196–219. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_7 [Google Scholar]
  124. 2000 The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner–place–time. Language Variation and Change11(3): 231–66. 10.1017/S0954394599113012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394599113012 [Google Scholar]
  125. Heidolph, Karl Erich , Flämig, Walter & Motsch, Wolfgang
    1981Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Heilmann, Arndt , Serbina, Tatiana , Freiwald, Jonas & Neumann, Stella
    2020 Animacy and agentivity of subject Themes in English-German translation. Lingua102813. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102813
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102813 [Google Scholar]
  127. Hoberg, Ursula
    1981Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. München: Max Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Hockett, Charles F.
    1958A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Höhle, Tilman N.
    2019a Explikationen für ‘normale Betonung’ und ‘normale Wortstellung’. InBeiträge zur deutschen Grammatik: Gesammelte Schriften von Tilman N. Höhle, Stefan Müller , Marga Reis & Frank Richter (eds), 107–191. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 2019b Topologische felder. InBeiträge zur deutschen Grammatik: Gesammelte Schriften von Tilman N. Höhle, Stefan Müller , Marga Reis & Frank Richter (eds), 7–89. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A..
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2): 251–99. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  132. Huddleston, Rodney
    1988 Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalization in Halliday’s Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics24(1): 137–74. 10.1017/S0022226700011592
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011592 [Google Scholar]
  133. 1991 Further remarks on Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Matthiessen and Martin. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics5: 75–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Hudson, Richard
    1986 Systemic Grammar: Review of an Introduction to Functional Grammar by M.A.K. Halliday, and Systemic Linguistics by C.S. Butler. Linguistics24: 791–815.
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Johansson, Stig
    1997 Using the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus: A corpus for contrastive analysis and translation studies. InInternational 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]
  136. 2007Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  137. Kast, Marlene
    2012 Variation within the grammatical function ‘subject’ in English-German and German- English translations. InCross-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. 10.1515/9783110260328.147
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.147 [Google Scholar]
  138. Katz, Jerrold J.
    1980 Chomsky on meaning. Language56(1): 1–41. 10.2307/412641
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412641 [Google Scholar]
  139. Kenny, Dorothy
    2001Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-Based Study. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Kies, Daniel
    1988 Marked Themes with and without pronominal reinforcement: Their meaning and distribution in discourse. InPragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systemically-Inspired Approaches, Erich Steiner & Robert Veltman (eds), 47–75. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Kim, Mira
    2007 A Discourse Based Study on Theme in Korean and Textual Meaning in Translation. PhD dissertation, Macquarie University.
  142. Kim, Mira & Huang, Zhi
    2012 Theme choices in translation and target readers’ reactions to different Theme choices. T&I Review2: 79–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Kim, Mira & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    2015 Ways to move forward in translation studies: A textual perspective. Target27(3): 335–350. 10.1075/target.27.3.01kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.27.3.01kim [Google Scholar]
  144. Kirkwood, Henry W.
    1970 Some systemic means of functional sentence perspective in English and German. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching8(2): 103–114. 10.1515/iral.1970.8.2.103
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1970.8.2.103 [Google Scholar]
  145. Koller, Werner
    2011Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, 8th edn, revised. Tübingen: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker
    2009Understanding English-German Contrasts, 2nd edn, revised. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Königs, Karin
    2011Übersetzen Englisch – Deutsch: Lernen mit System, 3rd edn, revised. München: Oldenbourg.
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Korner-Nievergelt, Franzi , Roth, Tobias , von Felten, Stefanie , Guelat, Jérôme , Almasi, Bettina & Korner-Nievergelt, Pius
    2015Bayesian Data Analysis in Ecology Using Linear Models with R, BUGS and Stan. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Kruger, Haidee
    2017 The effects of editorial intervention: Implications for studies of the features of translated language. InEmpirical Translation Studies, Gert de Sutter , Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 113–55. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-005 [Google Scholar]
  150. Kruger, Haidee & van Rooy, Bertus
    2012 Register and the features of translated language. Across Languages and Cultures13(1): 33–65. 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  151. Kuno, Susumu
    1973The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Kunz, Kerstin A.
    2010Variation in English and German Nominal Coreference: A Study of Political Essays. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Lakoff, George
    1977 Linguistic Gestalts. InPapers 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]
  154. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  155. Lasch, Alexander
    2016Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen [Sprache und Wissen (SuW) 25]. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110495430
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110495430 [Google Scholar]
  156. Leech, Geoffrey
    1991 The state of the art in corpus linguistics. InEnglish Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 8–29. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Li, Suqin
    2015 A description of the Theme structure of Bai clause. OJML5(6): 528–38. 10.4236/ojml.2015.56046
    https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.56046 [Google Scholar]
  158. Lindeberg, Ann-Charlotte
    1985 Abstraction levels in student essays. Text5: 327–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. 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. Perspectives21(2): 272–88. 10.1080/0907676X.2011.615940
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.615940 [Google Scholar]
  160. Lødrup, Helve
    1993 Subjects and thematic roles in English and Norwegian. Norsk Lingvistik Tidsskrift: NLT11: 105–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Lötscher, Andreas
    1983Satzakzent und funktionale Satzperspektive im Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111702513
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111702513 [Google Scholar]
  162. Martin, James R.
    1983 Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kate. Australian Journal of Linguistics3(1): 45–74. 10.1080/07268608308599299
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608308599299 [Google Scholar]
  163. Martin, James R.
    1986 Grammaticalising ecology: The politics of baby seals and kangaroos. InSemiotics, 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]
  164. Martin, James R.
    1989Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  165. 1992 Theme, method of development and existentiality: The price of reply. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics6: 147–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 2004 Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Tagalog. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 255–304. 10.1075/cilt.253.07mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.07mar [Google Scholar]
  167. Martin, James R. , Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Painter, Clare
    1997Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Mathesius, Vilém
    (1939) 1975 O tak zvaném aktuálním členění věty: (On the so-called functional sentence perspective]. InHarvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Susumu Kuno (ed.), 467–80. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    1992 Interpreting the textual metafunction. InAdvances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 37–81. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  170. 1995aLexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  171. 1995b Theme as an enabling resource in ideational knowledge construction. InThematic Development in English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 20–55. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Bateman, John A.
    1991Systemic Linguistics and Text Generation: Experience from Japanese and English. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  173. 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 Linguistics5: 5–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Mauranen, Anna
    1993 Theme and prospection in written discourse. InText and Technology, Mona Baker , Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 95–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.07mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.07mau [Google Scholar]
  175. 2004 Corpora, universals and interference. InTranslation Universals [Benjamins Translation Library 48], Anna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki (eds), 65–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.07mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.07mau [Google Scholar]
  176. 2007 Universal tendencies in translation. InIncorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, Gunilla von Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds), 32–48. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599873‑006
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599873-006 [Google Scholar]
  177. Mode, Donatien
    1987Syntax des Vorfelds: Zur Systematik und Didaktik der deutschen Wortstellu. [Germanistische Linguistik 74]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111371610
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111371610 [Google Scholar]
  178. Müller, Gereon
    1999 Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. 〈https://home.uni-leipzig.de/muellerg/mu32.pdf〉 (30 September 2020).
  179. Müller, Stefan , Reis, Marga & Richter, Frank
    2019Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik: Gesammelte Schriften von Tilman N. Höhle, 2nd edn, revised. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Munday, Jeremy
    2001Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  181. Neumann, Stella
    2003Textsorten und Übersetzen: Eine Korpusanalyse englischer und deutscher Reiseführer. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  182. 2012 Register-induced properties of translations. InCross-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. 10.1515/9783110260328.191
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.191 [Google Scholar]
  183. 2014Contrastive Register Variation: A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 200]. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  184. Neumann, Stella & Hansen-Schirra, Silvia
    2012 Corpus methodology and design. InCross-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. 10.1515/9783110260328.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.21 [Google Scholar]
  185. Newmark, Peter
    1988A Textbook of Translation. New York NY: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  186. Nida, Eugene Albert
    1964Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004495746
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004495746 [Google Scholar]
  187. Nida, Eugene Albert & Taber, Charles R.
    1969Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bibelübersetzung. London: Weltbund der Bibelgesellschaften.
    [Google Scholar]
  188. Niemietz, Paula , Neumann, Stella & Freiwald, Jonas
    2017 Shifts in Theme and subject realization in English-German translation. InChallenging Boundaries in Linguistics: Systemic Functional Perspectives, Stella Neumann , Rebekah Wegener , Jennifer Fest , Paula Niemietz & Nicole Hützen (eds), 331–357. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  189. O’Donnell, Mick
    2008a Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for Text and Image Annotation. InProceedings 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. 10.3115/1564144.1564148
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1564144.1564148 [Google Scholar]
  190. 2008b The UAM CorpusTool: Software for Corpus Annotation. InApplied 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]
  191. Oettinger, Anthony G.
    1960Automatic Language Translation: Lexical and Technical Aspects, with Particular Reference to Russian [Harvard Monographs in Applied Science 8]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674421974
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421974 [Google Scholar]
  192. Paul, Hermann
    1968Deutsche Grammatik, 5th edn, Vol.3. Halle: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110929805
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110929805 [Google Scholar]
  193. Quirk, Randolph , Greenbaum, Sidney , Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  194. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 〈www.R-project.org〉 (30 April 2023).
    [Google Scholar]
  195. Rashidi, Linda S.
    1992 Towards an understanding of the notion of Theme: An example from Dari. InAdvances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 189–204. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  196. Ravelli, Louise
    1995 A dynamic perspective: Implications for metafunctional interaction and an understanding of Theme. In Hasan & Fries (eds), 187–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  197. Rørvik, Sylvi
    2004 Thematic progression in translation of fiction from English to Norwegian. InTranslation 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]
  198. Rose, David
    2001 Some variations in Theme across languages. 〈https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252348010〉 (30 September 2020).
  199. 2004 Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Pitjantjatjara. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 479–536. 10.1075/cilt.253.11ros
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.11ros [Google Scholar]
  200. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1992 Conditionals as topics in discourse. Linguistics30(1): 165–197. 10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.165
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.165 [Google Scholar]
  201. Serbina, Tatiana
    2015 A Construction Grammar Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts: A Corpus-Based Study. PhD dissertation, RWTH Aachen University.
  202. Seuren, Pieter A. M.
    1998Western Linguistics. An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444307467
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307467 [Google Scholar]
  203. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InGrammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  204. Singmann, Henrik , Bolker, Ben , Westfall, Jake & Aust, Frederik
    2017Afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. 〈https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex〉 (30 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  205. Smirnova, Elena & Mortelmans, Tanja
    2010Funktionale Grammatik: Konzepte und Theorien. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110223873
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223873 [Google Scholar]
  206. Sohn, Ho-min
    1980 Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics2: 1–19. 10.1075/kl.2.01hms
    https://doi.org/10.1075/kl.2.01hms [Google Scholar]
  207. 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]
  208. Steiner, Erich & Ramm, Wiebke
    1995 On Theme as a grammatical notion for German. Functions of Language2(1): 57–93. 10.1075/fol.2.1.04ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.04ste [Google Scholar]
  209. Steiner, Erich & Teich, Elke
    2004 Metafunctional profile of the grammar of German. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 139–184. 10.1075/cilt.253.05ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.05ste [Google Scholar]
  210. de Swart, Peter
    2014 Prepositional inanimates in Dutch: A paradigmatic case of differential object marking. Linguistics52(2). 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0069
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0069 [Google Scholar]
  211. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-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. 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  212. Teruya, Kazuhiro
    2004 Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Japanese. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 185–254. 10.1075/cilt.253.06ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.06ter [Google Scholar]
  213. Thai, Minh Duc
    2004 Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Vietnamese. In Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen (eds), 397–431. 10.1075/cilt.253.09tha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.09tha [Google Scholar]
  214. Thompson, Geoff
    2006 Theme in text. InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol.12, Keith Brown (ed.). 2nd ed, 14Vols, 658–668. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00560‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00560-5 [Google Scholar]
  215. Thompson, Geoff
    2007 Unfolding Theme: The development of clausal and textual perspectives on Theme. InContinuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective, Ruqaiya Hasan , Christian Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds), 671–696. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  216. Thompson, Geoff
    2014Introducing Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203785270
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203785270 [Google Scholar]
  217. Thompson, Geoff & Thompson, Susan
    2009 Theme, subject and the unfolding of text. InText Type and Texture: In Honour of Flo Davies, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds), 45–69. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  218. Thompson, Sandra A.
    1978 Modern English from a typological point of view: Some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte54: 19–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  219. Thomson, Elizabeth A.
    2005 Theme unit analysis: A systemic-functional treatment of textual meanings in Japanese. Functions of Language12(2): 151–179. 10.1075/fol.12.2.02tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.2.02tho [Google Scholar]
  220. Toury, Gideon
    1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
    [Google Scholar]
  221. 2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond, 2nd edn, revised. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  222. Trosborg, Anna
    1997 Translating hybrid political texts. InAnalysing Professional Genres [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 74], Anna Trosborg (ed.), 145–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  223. Uszkoreit, Hans
    1987Word Order and Constituent Structure in German. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  224. Uzonyi, Pál & Dabóczi, Viktória
    2016 Quantitative Korpusuntersuchungen zur Phrasenstruktur von deutschen und ungarischen linken Feldern. InVariation 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. 10.1515/9783110444612‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110444612-003 [Google Scholar]
  225. Vanderauwera, Ria
    1985Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a ‘Minority’ Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004490284
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004490284 [Google Scholar]
  226. de Vasconcellos, Muriel Havel
    1985 Theme and Focus: Cross-Language Comparison via Translations from Extended Discourse. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
  227. 2008 Text and translation: The role of Theme and information. Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies27: 45–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  228. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2004 Initial and final position for adverbial clauses in English: The constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics42(4): 819–853. 10.1515/ling.2004.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.027 [Google Scholar]
  229. Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean
    1995Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation [Benjamins Translation Library 11]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  230. Virtanen, Tuija
    2014 Sentence-initial adverbials in written texts: On discourse functions and cognitive motivations. InAdverbials 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]
  231. Waugh, Linda
    1982 Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure. Semiotica38 (3–4): 299–318. 10.1515/semi.1982.38.3‑4.299
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1982.38.3-4.299 [Google Scholar]
  232. Weinrich, Harald
    1993Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  233. Whittaker, Rachel
    1995 Theme, processes and the realization of meanings in academic articles. InThematic Development in English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 105–28. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  234. Yan, Fang , McDonald, Edward & Musheng, Cheng
    1995 On Theme in Chinese: From clause to discourse. In Hasan & Fries (eds), 235–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  235. 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. InDiscAnnotation ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Bonnie Webber (Ed.), 118–125. Stroudsburg PA: ACL. 10.3115/1608938.1608954
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1608938.1608954 [Google Scholar]
  236. Zifonun, Gisela , Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno
    1997Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error