Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French

From syntax to lexis and discourse

image of Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French

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.


  1. Aarts, Bas
    2000 Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and fuzzy tree fragments. InCorpus 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]
  2. Adam, Jean-Michel
    2008La linguistique textuelle: Introduction à l’analyse textuelle des discours. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aijmer, Karin
    2008 Comparable and parallel corpora. InCorpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds), 275–292. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt
    1996 Introduction. InLanguages 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]
  5. 2000 The English-Swedish Parallel Corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. InCorpus 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]
  6. Aijmer, Karin , Altenberg, Bengt & Johansson, Mats
    1996 Text-based contrastive studies in English. Presentation of a project. InLanguages 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]
  7. Aijmer, Karin & Lewis, Diana
    2017Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54556‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54556-1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Aijmer, Karin & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
    2011 Pragmatic markers. InDiscursive Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 8], Jan Zienkowski , Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.8.13aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.13aij [Google Scholar]
  9. Alonso Belmonte, Isabel
    2007 Newspaper editorials and comment articles: a “Cinderella” genre?RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada1: 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Altenberg, Bengt
    1984 Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica38(1): 20–69. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1984.tb00734.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1984.tb00734.x [Google Scholar]
  11. 1986 Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. InEnglish in Speech and Writing. A Symposium, Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäckland (eds), 13–40. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1998 Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. InCorpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1999 Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. InOut of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Altenberg, Bengt 2002 Concessive connectors in English and Swedish. InInformation Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård , Stig Johansson , Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 21–43. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004334250_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334250_003 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2006 The function of adverbial connectors in second initial position in English and Swedish. InPragmatic Markers in Contrast, Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 11–37. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2007 The correspondence of resultive connectors in English and Swedish. NJES: Nordic Journal of English Studies6(1). hdl.handle.net/2077/4521 (4 September 2020). 10.35360/njes.2
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Altenberg, Bengt & Aijmer, Karin
    2002 Zero translations and cross-linguistic equivalence: Evidence from the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus. InFrom 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]
  18. Altenberg, Bengt & Granger, Sylviane
    2002 Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. InLexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 7], Bengt Altenberg & Sylviane Granger (eds), 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.7.04alt
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.7.04alt [Google Scholar]
  19. Altenberg, Bengt & Tapper, Marie
    1998 The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learner’s written English. InLearner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 80–93. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ansary, Hasan & Babaii, Esmat
    2005 The generic integrity of newspaper editorials: A systemic functional perspective. RELC Journal36(3): 271–295. 10.1177/0033688205060051
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688205060051 [Google Scholar]
  21. Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald
    1977 Deux “mais” en français?Lingua43: 23–40. 10.1016/0024‑3841(77)90046‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Armstrong, Nigel
    2005Translation, Linguistics, Culture: A French-English Handbook. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853598074
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598074 [Google Scholar]
  23. Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex
    2003Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Asr, Fatemeh & Demberg, Vera
    2012 Implicitness of discourse relations. InProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), 2669–2684.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Astington, Eric
    1983Equivalences. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Baker, Mona
    1993 Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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.), 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  29. Balažic Bulc, Tatjana & Gorjanc, Vojko
    2015 The position of connectors in Slovene and Croatian student academic writing: A corpus-based approach. InMeaning Making in Text, Sonja Starc , Carys Jones & Arianna Maiorani (eds), 51–71. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137477309_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137477309_4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ballard, Michel 1995 La traduction de la conjonction “and” en français. InRelations discursives et traduction, Michel Ballard (ed.), 221–293. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires de Lille.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Banks, David
    2002 Systemic functional linguistics as a model for text analysis. ASp. La revue du GERAS35–36: 23–34. 10.4000/asp.1584
    https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.1584 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2017A Systemic Functional Grammar of French. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315228327
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315228327 [Google Scholar]
  33. Banks, David , Eason, Simon & Ormrod, Janet
    2009La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Becher, Viktor
    2011 When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target23(1): 26–47. 10.1075/target.23.1.02bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23.1.02bec [Google Scholar]
  35. Bednarek, Monika
    2010 Corpus linguistics and systemic functional linguistics: Interpersonal meaning, identity and bonding in popular culture. InNew Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation, Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds), 237–266. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Beeching, Kate
    2013 A parallel corpus approach to investigating semantic change. InAdvances 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. 10.1075/scl.54.07bee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.54.07bee [Google Scholar]
  37. Bell, David
    2007 Sentence-initial “and” and “but” in academic writing. Pragmatics17(2): 183–201. 10.1075/prag.17.2.01bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.2.01bel [Google Scholar]
  38. Benamara, Farah & Taboada, Maite
    2015 Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. InProceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, 147–152. Denver CO: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/S15‑1016
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-1016 [Google Scholar]
  39. Berk, Richard A.
    2016Statistical Learning from a Regression Perspective. New York NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44048‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44048-4 [Google Scholar]
  40. Berry, Margaret
    1996 What is theme? A(nother) personal view. InMeaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations, Margaret Berry , Christopher Butler , Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds), 1–64. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Berry, Margaret , Thompson, Geoff & Hillier, Hilary
    2014 Theme and variations. InTheory 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. 10.1075/sfsl.68.05ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.05ber [Google Scholar]
  42. Bestgen, Yves
    2017 Getting rid of the Chi-square and Log-likelihood tests for analysing vocabulary differences between corpora. Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics22: 33–36. 10.7203/qf.22.11299
    https://doi.org/10.7203/qf.22.11299 [Google Scholar]
  43. Biber, Douglas
    1988Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1995Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2004 Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. InNew Media Language, Jean Aitchison & Diana Lewis (eds), 169–181. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan 2001 Register variation: A corpus approach. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin , Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany
    2010 Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes9(1): 2–20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Biber, Douglas , Johansson, Stig , Leech, Geoffrey , Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
    1999The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Bilger, Mireille & Cappeau, Paul
    2013 Une conjonction qui subordonne rarement: Le cas de “alors que.”InMorphologie, syntaxe et sémantique des subordonnants, Colette Bodelot (ed.), 259–273. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses universitaires Blaise Pascal.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Blakemore, Diane
    1989 Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of “but.”Linguistics and Philosophy12(1): 15–37. 10.1007/BF00627397
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627397 [Google Scholar]
  51. 1992Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2004Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Bloor, Thomas & Bloor, Meriel
    2004The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold. 10.4324/9780203774854
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774854 [Google Scholar]
  54. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication, Juliane House & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Bolívar, Adriana
    2002 The structure of newspaper editorials. InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), 276–294. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Bolton, Kingsley , Nelson, Gerald & Hung, Joseph
    2002 A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics7(2): 165–182. 10.1075/ijcl.7.2.02bol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.7.2.02bol [Google Scholar]
  57. Boularès, Michèle & Frérot, Jean-Louis
    2017Grammaire progressive du français. Niveau avancé. Paris: Clé International.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Bourgoin, Charlotte
    2017 The role of the English it-cleft and the French c’est-cleft in research discourse. Discours (21): 3–31. 10.4000/discours.9366
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9366 [Google Scholar]
  59. Bourmayan, Anouch , Loiseau, Yves , Rimbert, Odile & Taillandier, Isabelle
    2017Grammaire essentielle du français. Niveau B2. Paris: Didier.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Bowker, Lynne
    1999 Exploring the potential of corpora for raising language awareness in student translators. Language Awareness8(3-4): 160–173. 10.1080/09658419908667126
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658419908667126 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2003 Corpus-based applications for translator training: Exploring the possibilities. InCorpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger , Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 169–183. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Breiman, Leo , Friedman, Jerome , Olshen, Richard & Stone, Charles
    1984Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Burchfield, Robert W.
    2004Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Butler, Christopher
    2003Structure 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]
  65. Butler, Christopher S.
    2004 Corpus studies and functional linguistic theories. Functions of Language11(2): 147–186. 10.1075/fol.11.2.02but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.11.2.02but [Google Scholar]
  66. Butt, David , Fahey, Rhondda & Feez, Susan 2000Using Functional Grammar. An Explorer’s Guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Buysse, Lieven
    2017 English “so” and Dutch “dus” in a parallel corpus: An investigation into their mutual translatability. InContrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres, Karin Aijmer & Diana Lewis (eds), 33–61. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54556‑1_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54556-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  68. Caffarel, Alice
    2006A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: From Grammar to Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Caffarel, Alice , Martin, James R. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    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]
  70. Caffarel-Cayron, Alice & Rechniewski, Elizabeth
    2014 Exploring the generic structure of French editorials from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics. Journal of World Languages1(1): 18–37. 10.1080/21698252.2014.893672
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21698252.2014.893672 [Google Scholar]
  71. Carlson, Lynn & Marcu, Daniel
    2001Discourse tagging reference manual. ISI technical report ISI-TR-545.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael
    2006Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Carter-Thomas, Shirley
    2002 Theme and information structure in French and English: A contrastive study of journalistic clefts. In14th 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]
  74. Cartoni, Bruno , Zufferey, Sandrine & Meyer, Thomas
    2013 Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives by looking at their translation: The translation-spotting technique. Dialogue & Discourse4(2): 65–86. 10.5087/d&d.v4i2.2823
    https://doi.org/10.5087/d&d.v4i2.2823 [Google Scholar]
  75. Cartoni, Bruno , Zufferey, Sandrine , Meyer, Thomas & Popescu-Belis, Andrei
    2011 How comparable are parallel corpora? Measuring the distribution of general vocabulary and connectives. InProceedings 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]
  76. Castagnoli, Sara
    2009 Regularities and Variations in Learner Translations: A Corpus-based Study of Conjunctive Explicitation. PhD dissertation, Università di Pisa.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Larsen-Freeman, Diane
    1999The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Boston MA: Heinle & Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. InSubject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 25–55. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 1982 Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. InSpoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, Deborah Tannen (ed.), 35–53. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Chalker, Sylvia
    1996Linking Words. London: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Chang, Yu-Ying & Swales, John
    1999 Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers?InWriting: Texts, Processes and Practices, Christopher N. Candlin & Ken Hyland (eds), 145–167. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Charaudeau, Patrick
    1992Grammaire du sens et de l’expression. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Charolles, Michel & Vigier, Daniel
    2005 Les adverbiaux en position préverbale: Portée cadrative et organisation des discours. Langue française148(4): 9–30. 10.3406/lfr.2005.6604
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.2005.6604 [Google Scholar]
  84. Chesterman, Andrew 1998Contrastive Functional Analysis [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  85. Christiansen, Thomas
    2011Cohesion: A Discourse Perspective. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0234‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0234-5 [Google Scholar]
  86. Chuquet, Hélène & Paillard, Michel
    1987Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction anglais-français. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2017Glossaire de linguistique contrastive. Anglais-français. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Cohen, Jacob
    1988Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 1992 A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112(1): 155–159. 10.1037/0033‑2909.112.1.155
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [Google Scholar]
  90. Connor, Ulla & Moreno, Ana
    2005 Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. InDirections 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. 10.21832/9781853598500‑015
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598500-015 [Google Scholar]
  91. Conrad, Susan
    1999 The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System27(1): 1–18. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(98)00046‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00046-3 [Google Scholar]
  92. 2004 Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. InHow to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies Corpus Linguistics 12], John Sinclair (ed.), 67–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.12.08con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.12.08con [Google Scholar]
  93. Conrad, Susan & Biber, Douglas
    2000 Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds), 56–73. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 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 Literatures2: 199–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 2006 Clause combining across languages: A corpus-based study of English-French translation shifts. Languages in Contrast6(1): 71–108. 10.1075/lic.6.1.04cos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.6.1.04cos [Google Scholar]
  96. 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. 10.1075/slcs.98.06cos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.98.06cos [Google Scholar]
  97. 2008b Clause Linking across Languages. A Corpus-based Study of Coordination and Subordination in English, French and Dutch. PhD dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Cotter, Colleen
    2003 Prescription and practice. Journal of Historical Pragmatics4(1): 45–74. 10.1075/jhp.4.1.04cot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.4.1.04cot [Google Scholar]
  99. Craggs, Richard & McGee Wood, Mary
    2005 Evaluating discourse and dialogue coding schemes. Computational Linguistics31(3): 289–296. 10.1162/089120105774321109
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089120105774321109 [Google Scholar]
  100. Crewe, W. J.
    1990 The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal44(4): 316–325. 10.1093/elt/44.4.316
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.316 [Google Scholar]
  101. Crible, Ludivine 2017 Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French: Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(2): 242–269. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri [Google Scholar]
  102. 2018Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency: Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 286]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.286
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.286 [Google Scholar]
  103. Crible, Ludivine & Zufferey, Sandrine
    2015 Using a unified taxonomy to annotate discourse markers in speech and writing. InProceedings 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]
  104. Crismore, Avon , Markkanen, Raija & Steffensen, Margaret
    1993 Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication10(1): 39–71. 10.1177/0741088393010001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002 [Google Scholar]
  105. Cross, Cate & Oppenheim, Charles
    2006 A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. Journal of Documentation62(4): 428–446. 10.1108/00220410610700953
    https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610700953 [Google Scholar]
  106. Csüry, István
    2001Le champ lexical de “mais”: Étude lexico-grammaticale des termes d’opposition du français contemporain dans un cadre textologique. Debrecen: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 2006 L’identification d’une discipline: Difficultés et perspectives. Commentaires sur les différentes approches d’un objet pluridisciplinaire. InDes discours aux textes: Modèles et analyses, Philippe Lane (ed.), 103–124. Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Cuenca, Maria Josep
    2003 Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics35(7): 1069–1093. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00004‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00004-3 [Google Scholar]
  109. Cuenca, Maria Josep & Bach, Carme
    2007 Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies9(2): 149–175. 10.1177/1461445607075347
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075347 [Google Scholar]
  110. Cummings, Michael
    2009 The theme/rheme distinction and the method of development of written French text. InLa linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks , Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds), 43–66. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 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 Pragmatics40(1): 95–113. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  112. Danlos, Laurence , Colinet, Margot & Steinlin, Jacques
    2015a FDTB1, première étape du projet French Discourse Treebank: Repérage des connecteurs de discours en corpus. Discours17. 10.4000/discours.9065
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9065 [Google Scholar]
  113. 2015bFDTB: Annotation des connecteurs de discours dans un corpus français. Rapport technique. Paris: ALPAGE, Université Paris Diderot.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Danlos, Laurence & Roze, Charlotte
    2011Hiérarchie des relations de discours dans le FDTB. Rapport technique. Paris: ALPAGE, Université Paris Diderot.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Das, Debopam & Taboada, Maite
    2013 Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. InProceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Shan Luo (ed.). Victoria: University of Victoria.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. De Beaugrande, Robert & Dressler, Wolfgang U.
    1981Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. 10.4324/9781315835839
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835839 [Google Scholar]
  117. de Carvalho, Paulo
    2005 Phrase nominale, ‘parties du discours’ et théorie syntaxique. Syntaxe et Sémantique6: 87–102. 10.3917/ss.006.0087
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.006.0087 [Google Scholar]
  118. De Cesare, Anna-Maria
    2013 On the focusing function of focusing adverbs: A discussion based on Italian data. Linguistik Online44(4). 10.13092/lo.44.406
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.44.406 [Google Scholar]
  119. Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania 2015 Evaluative meaning and cohesion: The structuring function of evaluative meaning in scientific writing. Discours16: 3–29. 10.4000/discours.9053
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9053 [Google Scholar]
  120. Degand, Liesbeth
    2004 Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: the case of “puisque” and “aangezien.”InLanguage, Culture and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 251–270. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 2014 “So very fast very fast then” Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. InDiscourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds), 151–178. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_008 [Google Scholar]
  122. Degand, Liesbeth & Fagard, Benjamin
    2011 “Alors” between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language18(1): 29–56. 10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg [Google Scholar]
  123. Degand, Liesbeth , Lefèvre, Nathalie & Bestgen, Yves
    1999 The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design1(1): 39–51. 10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg [Google Scholar]
  124. Degand, Liesbeth & Pander Maat, Henk
    2003 A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. InUsage-Based Approaches to Dutch. Lexicon, Grammar, Discourse, Arie Verhagen & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 175–199. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Degand, Liesbeth & Sanders, Ted J. M.
    2002 The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing15(7): 739–757. 10.1023/A:1020932715838
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020932715838 [Google Scholar]
  126. 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. InEmpirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, Gert De Sutter , Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 81–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-004 [Google Scholar]
  127. Delisle, Jean
    2013La traduction raisonnée. Manuel d’initiation à la traduction professionnelle de l’anglais vers le français. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Demberg, Vera , Asr, Fatemeh & Scholman, Merel
    2017 How compatible are our discourse annotations? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations. ArXiv e-prints. arxiv.org/abs/1704.08893 (4 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Dixon, Robert & Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2011The Semantics of Clause Linking: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 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]
  131. Dupont, Maïté
    2013 Contrastive Relations in English and French Editorials. A Corpus-based Study. MA dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 2015 Word order in English and French: The position of English and French adverbial connectors of contrast. English Text Construction8(1): 88–124. doi:10.1075/etc.8.1.04dup.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.8.1.04dup [Google Scholar]
  133. 2018 Between lexis and discourse. A cross-register study of connectors of contrast. InCorpora and Lexis, Sebastian Hoffmann , Andrea Sand , Sabine Arndt-Lappe & Lisa Marie Dillmann (eds.), 173–208. Leiden: Brill Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Dupont, Maïté & Sandrine, Zufferey
    2017 Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora: A case study of English and French concessive connectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(2): 270–297. doi:10.1075/ijcl.22.2.05dup.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.05dup [Google Scholar]
  135. Ebeling, Jarle & Oksefjell Ebeling, Signe
    2013Patterns in Contrast [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 58]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.58
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.58 [Google Scholar]
  136. Eggins, Suzanne
    1994An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 2004An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Elgemark, Anna
    2017 To the Very End. A Contrastive Study of N-Rhemes in English and Swedish Translations. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Enkvist, Nils
    1973 Theme dynamics and style: An experiment. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia5(12): 127–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 1978 Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence. InCohesion and Semantics, Jan-Ola Östman (ed.), 109–128. Åbo: Åbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut.
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    2007Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Espunya, Anna 2007 Informativeness and explicit linking in the translation of the English V-ing free adjuncts into Catalan. Languages in Contrast7(2): 143–166. 10.1075/lic.7.2.04esp
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.04esp [Google Scholar]
  143. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
    2005 Elusive connectives. A case study on the explicitness dimension of discourse coherence. Linguistics43(1): 17–48. 10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.17 [Google Scholar]
  144. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine , Ramm, Wiebke , Solfjeld, Kåre & Behrens, Bergljot
    2005 Coordination, discourse relations, and information packaging - cross-linguistic differences. InProceedings 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]
  145. Fawcett, Robin
    2000A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 206]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.206
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.206 [Google Scholar]
  146. 2007 The many types of “Theme” in English: Their semantic systems and their functional syntax. 1–105. www.cardiff.ac.uk/chri/researchpapers/humanities/papers1-10/4Fawcett.pdf (4 September 2020).
  147. Field, Andy , Miles, Jeremy & Field, Zoë
    2012Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 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 Journal23(1): 15–28. 10.1177/003368829202300102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300102 [Google Scholar]
  149. Filipović, Rudolf
    1974 The use of a corpus in contrastive studies. InTrends in Kontrastiver Linguistik, Horst Raabe (ed.), 51–66. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Firbas, Jan
    1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  151. 1995 A contribution on a panel discussion on rheme. InThematic Development of English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 213–222. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Fløttum, Kjersti , Dahl, Trine & Kinn, Torodd
    2006Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 148]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.148
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148 [Google Scholar]
  153. Flowerdew, John & Forest, Richard
    2015Signalling Nouns in Academic English. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139135405
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135405 [Google Scholar]
  154. Foolen, Ad
    1991 Polyfunctionality and the semantics of adversative conjunctions. Multilingua10(1): 72–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Fraser, Bruce
    1998 Contrastive discourse markers in English. InDiscourse Markers. Description and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 301–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57.15fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.15fra [Google Scholar]
  156. 1999 What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics31(7): 931–952. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  157. Fraser, Bruce & Malamud-Makowski, Monica
    1996 English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers. Language Sciences18(3): 863–881. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00052‑
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00052- [Google Scholar]
  158. Fretheim, Thorstein & Johansson, Stig
    2002 The semantics and pragmatics of the Norwegian concessive marker “likevel”: Evidence from the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus. Language and Computers40(1): 81–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Fries, Peter
    1994 On theme, rheme and discourse goals. InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), 229–249. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 1995 A personal view of theme. InThematic Development in English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 1–19. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Gallagher, John 1995 L’effacement des connecteurs adversatifs et concessifs en français moderne. InRelations discursives et traduction, Michel Ballard (ed.), 201–220. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Gast, Volker
    2012 Contrastive analysis: Theories and methods. InDictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science: Linguistic Theory and Methodology, Bernd Kortmann & Johannes Kabatek (eds), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  163. 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, Karin Aijmer , Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 53–62. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
    2010Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.39 [Google Scholar]
  165. Glaud, Ludivine , Loiseau, Yves & Merlet, Elise
    2015Grammaire essentielle du français. Niveau B1. Paris: Didier.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Gliemann, Marie-Françoise , Bonenfant, Joëlle , Bazelle-Shahmaei, Bernadette & Akyüz, Anne
    2015Focus: Grammaire du français. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 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 Studies46: 115–154. 10.5007/%x
    https://doi.org/10.5007/%x [Google Scholar]
  168. Gómez González, María de los 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]
  169. González Rodríguez, María José
    2007 On the interpretation of ideology through comment articles: Two views in opinion discourse. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada1: 49–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Granger, Sylviane
    In press Phraséologie et lexicographie bilingue: Apports croisés des corpus monolingues et parallèles. InAutour 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]
  171. 1996 From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. InLanguages 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]
  172. 1997 On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. InStudies in English Language and Teaching, Jan Aarts , Inge de Mönnink & Herman Wekker (eds), 185–198. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  173. 1998 The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. InLearner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 3–18. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  174. 2003 The corpus approach: A common way forward for Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. InCorpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger , Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 17–29. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  175. 2010 Comparable and translation corpora in cross-linguistic research. Design, analysis and applications. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University2: 14–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Granger, Sylviane 2014 A lexical bundle approach to comparing languages: Stems in English and French. Languages in Contrast14(1): 58–72. 10.1075/lic.14.1.04gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.04gra [Google Scholar]
  177. 2018 Tracking the third code: A cross-linguistic corpus-driven approach to metadiscursive markers. InThe Corpus Linguistics Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87], A. Cermakova & Michaela Mahlberg (eds), 185–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.87.08gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.08gra [Google Scholar]
  178. Granger, Sylviane & Lefer, Marie-Aude
    2013 Enriching the phraseological coverage of bilingual dictionaries: The respective contribution of monolingual and bilingual corpus data. InAdvances 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. 10.1075/scl.54.10gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.54.10gra [Google Scholar]
  179. (eds) 2020The Complementary Contribution of Comparable and Parallel Corpora to Crosslinguistic Studies. Special issue of Languages in Contrast20(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Granger, Sylviane , Lerot, Jacques & Petch-Tyson, Stephanie
    2003 Preface. InCorpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger , Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 9–13. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042029248_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029248_003 [Google Scholar]
  181. Granger, Sylviane & Tyson, Stephanie
    1996 Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes15(1): 17–27. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1996.tb00089.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x [Google Scholar]
  182. Gray, Bethany
    2015Linguistic Variation in Research Articles [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  183. Greenbaum, Sidney
    1969Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  184. 1988 Syntactic devices for compression in English. InEssays 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]
  185. Grégoire, Maïa & Thievenaz, Odile
    2017Grammaire progressive du français. Niveau intermédiaire. Paris: Clé International.
    [Google Scholar]
  186. Grellet, Françoise
    1991Apprendre à traduire: Typologie d’exercices et de traduction. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
    [Google Scholar]
  187. Grevisse, Maurice & Goosse, André
    1995Nouvelle grammaire française: Grammaire. Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur.
    [Google Scholar]
  188. 2011Le bon usage. Bruxelles: De Boeck - Duculot.
    [Google Scholar]
  189. Gries, Stefan T.
    2006 Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora1(2): 109–151. 10.3366/cor.2006.1.2.109
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  190. 2009 What is corpus linguistics?Language and Linguistics Compass3(5): 1225–1241. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00149.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00149.x [Google Scholar]
  191. 2013Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110307474
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474 [Google Scholar]
  192. Grieve, James
    1996Dictionary of Contemporary French Connectors. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  193. Grote, Brigitte , Lenke, Nils & Stede, Manfred
    1997 Ma(r)king concessions in English and German. Discourse Processes24(1): 87–117. 10.1080/01638539709545008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545008 [Google Scholar]
  194. Guillemin-Flescher, Jacqueline
    1981Syntaxe comparée du français et de l’anglais: Problèmes de traduction. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  195. Gutwinski, Waldemar
    1976Cohesion in Literary Texts. A Study of some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783111352176
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111352176 [Google Scholar]
  196. Hadermann, Pascale & Degand, Liesbeth 2009 Structure narrative et connecteurs temporels en français langue seconde. InLa langue en contexte, Eva Havu , Juhani Härmä , Mervi Helkkula , Meri Larjavaara & Ulla Tuomarla (eds), 19–34. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  197. Hajičová, Eva
    1994 Topic/Focus and related research. InThe Prague School of Structural and Functional Linguistics [Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 41], Philip A. Luelsdorff (ed.), 245–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/llsee.41.10haj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.41.10haj [Google Scholar]
  198. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1967 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]
  199. 1970 Language structure and language function. InNew Horizons in Linguistics, John Lyons (ed.), 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  200. 1971 Language in a social perspective. Educational Review23(3): 165–188. 10.1080/0013191710230302
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191710230302 [Google Scholar]
  201. 1977 Text as semantic choice in social contexts. InGrammars and Descriptions: Studies in Text Theory and Text Analysis, Teun van Dijk & János Petöfi (eds), 176–225. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110839609‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110839609-009 [Google Scholar]
  202. 1978Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  203. 1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  204. 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]
  205. 1992 Language as system and language as instance: The corpus as a theoretical construct. InDirections in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991, Jan Svartvik (ed.), 61–77. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110867275.61
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867275.61 [Google Scholar]
  206. 2005Computational and Quantitative Studies, Jonathan J. Webster (ed.). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  207. 2006 Afterwords. InSystem and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 293–299. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  208. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  209. 1989Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  210. Halliday, Michael A. K. & James, Zoe
    1993 A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. InTechniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse, John Sinclair , Michael Hoey & Gwyneth Fox (eds), 93–128. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  211. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  212. Halverson, Sandra
    2004 Connectives as a translation problem. InAn 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]
  213. Hannay, Mike & Gómez-González, María de los Ángeles
    2012 Thematic parentheticals in Dutch and English. Linguistics and the Human Sciences6: 99–127. 10.1558/lhs.v6i1‑3.99
    https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.99 [Google Scholar]
  214. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Neumann, Stella
    2003 The challenges of working with multilingual corpora. InProceedings 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]
  215. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , Neumann, Stella & Steiner, Erich 2012Cross-linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110260328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  216. Hartnett, Carolyn
    1995 The pit after the theme. InThematic Development of English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 198–212. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  217. Hasan, Ruqaiya
    1984 Coherence and cohesive harmony. InUnderstanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language, and the Structure of Prose, James Flood (ed.), 181–219. Newark DE: International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  218. Haselow, Alexander
    2011 Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics43(14): 3603–3623. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  219. 2012 Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication32(3): 182–204. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  220. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86(3): 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  221. Hasselgård, Hilde
    2004a 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]
  222. 2004b The role of multiple themes in cohesion. InDiscourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 120], Karin Aijmer & Anna-Brita Stenström (eds), 65–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.120.06has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.120.06has [Google Scholar]
  223. 2010a Contrastive analysis/contrastive linguistics. InThe Routledge Linguistics Encyclopaedia, Kirsten Malmkjaer (ed.). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  224. 2010bAdjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511676253
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676253 [Google Scholar]
  225. 2014a Additive conjunction across languages: “dessuten” and its correspondences in English and French. Oslo Studies in Language6(1): 69–89. 10.5617/osla.691
    https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.691 [Google Scholar]
  226. 2014b Discourse-structuring functions of initial adverbials in English and Norwegian news and fiction. Languages in Contrast14(1): 73–92. 10.1075/lic.14.1.05has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.05has [Google Scholar]
  227. Hawes, Thomas & Thomas, Sarah
    2012 Theme choice in EAP and media language. Journal of English for Academic Purposes11(3): 175–183. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  228. Hawkins, Roger & Towell, Richard
    2001French Grammar and Usage. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  229. Hempel, Susanne & Degand, Liesbeth
    2008 Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics40(4): 676–693. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  230. He, Qingshun & Wen, Binli
    2017 A corpus-based study of textual metaphor in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics37(3): 265–285. 10.1080/07268602.2017.1298393
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2017.1298393 [Google Scholar]
  231. He, Qingshun & Yang, Bingjun
    2015Absolute Clauses in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective: A Corpus-Based Study. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑46367‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46367-3 [Google Scholar]
  232. Herbst, Thomas , Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Faulhaber, Susen
    2014 From collocations and patterns to constructions – An introduction. InConstructions, Collocations, Patterns, Thomas Herbst , Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds), 1–8. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110356854.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110356854.1 [Google Scholar]
  233. Herriman, Jennifer
    2011 N-rhemes in English problem–solution texts. English Text Construction4(1): 29–53. 10.1075/etc.4.1.03her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.4.1.03her [Google Scholar]
  234. Herriman, Jennifer & Bostrom Aronsson, Mia 2009 Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. InCorpora and Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 33], Karin Aijmer (ed.), 101–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.33.11her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.11her [Google Scholar]
  235. Hervey, Sándor & Higgins, Ian
    1992Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method, French-English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  236. 2002Thinking French Translation: A Course in Translation Method: French to English. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203417973
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417973 [Google Scholar]
  237. Hoarau, Lucie
    1997Étude contrastive de la coordination en français et en anglais. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  238. Hoek, Jet , Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted J. M.
    2018 Segmenting discourse: Incorporating interpretation into segmentation?Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14(2): 357–386. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0042
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0042 [Google Scholar]
  239. Hoek, Jet & Zufferey, Sandrine
    2015 Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. InConference 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]
  240. 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 Pragmatics121(Supplement C): 113–131. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  241. Hoey, Michael
    1991Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  242. 2005Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  243. Holtz, Monica
    2007 Corpus-based analysis of verb/noun collocations in interdisciplinary registers. InProceedings 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).
    [Google Scholar]
  244. Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
    2002The Cambdrige Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  245. Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
    1999 “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics4(2): 221–242. 10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun [Google Scholar]
  246. Hunston, Susan
    2013 Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk33(4-5): 614–640. 10.1515/text‑2013‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0028 [Google Scholar]
  247. Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill
    2000Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  248. Hyland, Ken
    1998 Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics30(4): 437–455. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 [Google Scholar]
  249. Hyland, Ken & Jiang, Feng (Kevin)
    2017 Is academic writing becoming more informal?English for Specific Purposes45: 40–51. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  250. 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 Evaluation49(2): 263–309. 10.1007/s10579‑014‑9271‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9271-6 [Google Scholar]
  251. Ivir, Vladimir
    1983 A translation-based model of contrastive analysis. Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies9: 171–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  252. Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita 2008 Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics40(4): 646–675. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  253. Jacobson, Sven
    1964Adverbial Positions in English. Uppsala: Studentbok.
    [Google Scholar]
  254. James, Carl
    1980Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  255. Janicki, Karol
    1990 On the tenability of the notion “pragmatic equivalence” in contrastive analysis. InFurther Insights into Contrastive Analysis [Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 30], Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 47–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  256. Jaszczolt, Katarzyna
    2003 On translating “what is said”: Tertium comparationis in contrastive semantics and pragmatics. InMeaning Through Language Contrast, Vol. 2, Katarzyna Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (eds), 441–462. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.100.26jas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.100.26jas [Google Scholar]
  257. Johansson, Stig
    1998 On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. InCorpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 3–24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  258. 2003 Contrastive linguistics and corpora. InCorpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, Sylviane Granger , Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 31–44. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  259. 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]
  260. 2012 Cross-linguistic perspectives. InEnglish Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, Merjä Kytö (ed.), 45–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  261. Johansson, Stig & Hofland, Knud
    1994 Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus. InCreating 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]
  262. Johansson, Stig & Lysvåg, Per
    1986Understanding English Grammar: An Overview. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    [Google Scholar]
  263. Kaplan, Robert B.
    1966 Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning16(1-2): 1–20. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1966.tb00804.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x [Google Scholar]
  264. Károly, Krisztina
    2017Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation: The Case of Hungarian-English News Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.134
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.134 [Google Scholar]
  265. Knott, Alistair
    1996 A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  266. König, Ekkehard
    2012 Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast12(1): 3–26. 10.1075/lic.12.1.02kon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.1.02kon [Google Scholar]
  267. König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter
    2000 Causal and concessive clauses: formal and semantic relations. InCause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 341–360. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.4.341
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.341 [Google Scholar]
  268. Kortmann, Bernd
    1991Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  269. Kruger, Haidee
    2017 The effects of editorial intervention: Implications for studies of the features of translated language. InEmpirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, Gert De Sutter , Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 113–155. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-005 [Google Scholar]
  270. 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]
  271. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P.
    1984 Tertium comparationis. InContrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 301–312. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110824025.301
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110824025.301 [Google Scholar]
  272. 1990Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110860146
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146 [Google Scholar]
  273. Kunz, Kerstin , Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania , Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina , Menzel, Katrien & Steiner, Erich
    2017 English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for translation. InEmpirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, Gert De Sutter , Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabelle Delaere (eds), 265–311. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-010 [Google Scholar]
  274. Kunz, Kerstin & Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina
    2014 Cohesive conjunctions in English and German: Systemic contrasts and textual differences. InRecent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora, Lieven Vandelanotte , Kristin Davidse , Caroline Gentens & Ditte Kimps (eds), 229–262. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401211130_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401211130_012 [Google Scholar]
  275. 2015 Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies14(1): 258–288. 10.35360/njes.347
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.347 [Google Scholar]
  276. Kunz, Kerstin & Steiner, Erich
    2012 Towards a comparison of cohesive reference in English and German: System and text. InContrastive Discourse Analysis: Functional and Corpus Perspectives, Maite Taboada , Susana Doval Suarez & Elsa Gonzalez Alvarez (eds), 208–239. Sheffield: Equinox. 10.1558/lhs.v6i1‑3.219
    https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.219 [Google Scholar]
  277. 2013 Cohesive substitution in English and German: A contrastive and corpus-based perspective. InAdvances 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. 10.1075/scl.54.12kunz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.54.12kunz [Google Scholar]
  278. 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. www.cs.cmu.edu/~dkurokaw/publications/MTS-2009-Kurokawa.pdf (4 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  279. Lado, Robert
    1957Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  280. Lakoff, Robin
    1971 If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. InStudies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langndoen (eds), 3–114. New York NY: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  281. Lambrecht, Knud
    1988 Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. InClause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.08lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.08lam [Google Scholar]
  282. 2010 Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English. InComparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 165], Carsten Breul & Edward Göbbel (eds), 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.165.04lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.165.04lam [Google Scholar]
  283. Lamiroy, Béatrice & Van Belle, William
    1995 Connectives of contrast and concession in Dutch and French. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie84(3): 397–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  284. 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. InConnexion et indexation. Ces liens qui lient le texte, Laure Sarda , Denis Vigier & Bernard Combettes (eds), 195–209. Lyon: ENS Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  285. 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]
  286. 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. 10.3115/v1/W15‑1620
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W15-1620 [Google Scholar]
  287. 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 Linguistics22(1): 57–84. 10.1075/ijcl.22.1.03lar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.03lar [Google Scholar]
  288. 2017b A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes48: 57–70. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  289. Lauridsen, Karen
    1996 Text corpora and contrastive linguistics: which type of corpus for which type of analysis?InLanguages 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]
  290. Lavid, Julia
    2010 Contrasting choices in clause-initial position in English and Spanish: A corpus-based analysis. InThresholds 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]
  291. Lavid, Julia , Arús, Jorge & Zamorano-Mansilla, Juan Rafael
    2011Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  292. Laviosa, Sara
    2009 Universals. InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha (eds), 306–310. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  293. Le Draoulec, Anne & Bras, Myriam
    2006 Quelques candidats au statut de ‘connecteur temporel’. Cahiers de Grammaire30: 219–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  294. Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
    2002A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  295. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  296. Lefer, Marie-Aude & Cartoni, Bruno
    2011 Prefixes in contrast: Towards a meaning-based contrastive methodology for lexical morphology. Languages in Contrast11(1): 87–105. 10.1075/lic.11.1.07lef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.11.1.07lef [Google Scholar]
  297. 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 Cultures16: 187–208. 10.1556/084.2015.16.2.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2015.16.2.3 [Google Scholar]
  298. Lefer, Marie-Aude & Vogeleer, Svetlana
    (eds) 2014Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast. Special issue of Languages in Contrast14(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  299. Lefeuvre, Florence
    1999La phrase averbale en français. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  300. Le Goffic, Pierre
    1994Grammaire de la phrase française. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  301. Lehmann, Christian 1988 Towards a typology of clause linkage. InClause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 181–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.09leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.09leh [Google Scholar]
  302. Lenker, Ursula
    2010Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216066
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216066 [Google Scholar]
  303. 2011 A focus on adverbial connectors: Connecting, partitioning and focusing attention in the history of English. Varieng: Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English8. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/08/lenker/ (4 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  304. 2014 Knitting and splitting information: Medial placement of linking adverbials in the history of English. InContact, 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. 10.1075/slcs.159.02len
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.159.02len [Google Scholar]
  305. Leroux, Agnès
    2012 La relation inter-énonciative et le marquage syntaxique des relations de cause: Étude contrastive anglais-français. CORELAHS-10. 10.4000/corela.2429
    https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.2429 [Google Scholar]
  306. Levshina, Natalia
    2015How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  307. Lewis, Diana
    2005 Mapping adversative coherence relations in English and French. Languages in Contrast5(1): 33–48. 10.1075/lic.5.1.05lew.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.5.1.05lew [Google Scholar]
  308. 2006 Contrastive analysis of adversative relational markers using comparable corpora. InPragmatic Markers in Contrast, Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 139–153. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  309. 2009 Markers of concession in a contrastive perspective: evidence from an English/French comparable corpus. InCorpora 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]
  310. Liu, Dilin
    2008 Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13(4): 491–518. 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.05liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.05liu [Google Scholar]
  311. Loock, Rudy
    2018 Using non-standard word order you should! A corpus-based approach to avoiding standardized word order in translated French. InUsing 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]
  312. Lores, Rosa
    2004 On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes23(3): 280–302. 10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  313. Love, Alison
    2004 Drawing on (a lot of) “Given”: One aspect of theme choice in newspaper editorials. InText and Texture. Systemic Functional Viewpoints on the Nature and Structure of Text, David Banks (ed.). Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  314. Lynch, Jack
    2007The English Language: A User’s Guide. Newburyport MA: Focus.
    [Google Scholar]
  315. Macken, Lieve , De Clercq, Orphée & Paulussen, Hans
    2011 Dutch Parallel Corpus: A balanced copyright-cleared parallel corpus. Meta56(2): 374–390. 10.7202/1006182ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1006182ar [Google Scholar]
  316. 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 Amerikanistik43(2): 111–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  317. Mann, William & Thompson, Sandra
    1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text8: 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  318. Mann, William & Thompson, Sandra 1992 Relational discourse structure: A comparison of approaches to structuring text by “contrast.”InLanguage in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, Shin Ja Hwang & William Merrifield (eds), 19–45. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  319. Martel, Guylaine
    1993 Les connecteurs contre-argumentatifs en anglais, en français et en espagnol: Une question d’usage. Langues et Linguistique19: 151–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  320. Martin, James R.
    1983 Conjunction: The logic of English text. InMicro and Macro Connexity of Texts, János Petöfi & Emel Sözer (eds), 1–72. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  321. 1992English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  322. 2001 Cohesion and texture. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin , Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 35–53. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  323. Martin, James R. & Rose, David
    2007Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  324. Mason, Ian
    1998 Discourse connectives, ellipsis and markedness. InThe Pragmatics of Translation, Leo Hickey (ed.), 170–186. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  325. 2001 Translator behaviour and language usage: Some constraints on contrastive studies. Hermes26: 65–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  326. 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]
  327. 2002 Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. InComplex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson, Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds), 235–319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.110.13mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.110.13mat [Google Scholar]
  328. 2006 Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. InSystem and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 103–142. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  329. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Thompson, Sandra
    1988 The structure of discourse and “subordination.”InClause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds), 275–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.12mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.12mat [Google Scholar]
  330. Mauranen, Anna
    1999 Will “translationese” ruin a contrastive study?Languages in Contrast2(2): 161–185. 10.1075/lic.2.2.03mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.2.2.03mau [Google Scholar]
  331. 2008 Universal tendencies in translation. InIncorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, Gunilla M. Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds), 32–48. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  332. McDonald, Daniel & Woodward-Kron, Robyn
    2016 Member roles and identities in online support groups: Perspectives from corpus and systemic functional linguistics. Discourse & Communication10(2): 157–175. 10.1177/1750481315615985
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481315615985 [Google Scholar]
  333. McEnery, Tony & Wilson, Andrew
    2001Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  334. McEnery, Tony & Xiao, Richard
    2007 Parallel and comparable corpora: What are they up to?InIncorporating Corpora: Translation and the Linguist, Gunilla M. Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds), 17–21. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599873‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599873-005 [Google Scholar]
  335. McEnery, Tony , Xiao, Richard & Tono, Yukio
    2006Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  336. Meyer, David , Zeileis, Achim , Hornik, Kurt , Gerber, Florian & Friendly, Michael
    2017vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vcd (4 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  337. Meyer, Thomas 2011 Disambiguating temporal-contrastive connectives for machine translation. InProceedings of the ACL-HLT 2011 Student Session, 46–51. Portland OR.
    [Google Scholar]
  338. Meyer, Thomas , Popescu-Belis, Andrei , Zufferey, Sandrine & Cartoni, Bruno
    2011 Multilingual annotation and disambiguation of discourse connectives for Machine Translation. InProceedings of the SIGDIAL 2011 Conference (SIGDIAL ‘11), 194–203. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  339. Mikhailov, Mikhail & Cooper, Robert
    2016Corpus Linguistics for Translation and Contrastive Studies: A Guide for Research. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315624570
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624570 [Google Scholar]
  340. Miller, Donna & Johnson, Jane
    2013 “Register-idiosyncratic” evaluative choice in Congressional debate. InSystemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, Lise Fontaine , Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 417–431. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139583077.026
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.026 [Google Scholar]
  341. 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. InEvaluation in Context [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 242], Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds), 345–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.17mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.17mil [Google Scholar]
  342. Miltsakaki, Eleni , Dinesh, Nikhil , Prasad, Rashmi , Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie
    2005 Experiments on sense annotations and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. InProceedings of the 4th Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT), 9–10 December 2005, Barcelona, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  343. Miltsakaki, Eleni , Prasad, Rashmi , Joshi, Aravind & Bonnie, Webber
    2004 The Penn Discourse Treebank. InProceedings of the 4th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. Lisbon, Portugal.
    [Google Scholar]
  344. Morel, Mary-Annick
    1996La concession en français. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  345. Morel, Mary-Annick & Danon-Boileau, Laurent
    1998Grammaire de l’intonation. L’exemple du français oral. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  346. Moreno, Ana I.
    1998 The explicit signaling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text18(4): 545–585. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.4.545
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.4.545 [Google Scholar]
  347. Mortier, Liesbeth & Degand, Liesbeth
    2009 Adversative discourse markers in contrast: The need for a combined corpus approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics14(3): 3–301. 10.1075/ijcl.14.3.03mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.03mor [Google Scholar]
  348. Muller, Philippe , Vergez-Couret, Marianne , Prévot, Laurent , Asher, Nicholas , Farah, Benamara , Bras, Myriam , Le Draoulec, Anne & Vieu, Laure
    2012Manuel d’annotation en relations de discours du projet ANNODIS. Rapport technique. Toulouse: CLLE-ERSS.
    [Google Scholar]
  349. Murray, John D.
    1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition25(2): 227–236. 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  350. Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. & Xuan, Winfred Wenhui
    2016 A survey of studies in systemic functional language description and typology. Functional Linguistics3. 10.1186/s40554‑016‑0030‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0030-4 [Google Scholar]
  351. Nesbitt, Christopher & Plum, Guenther
    1988 Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause complex in English. InNew Developments in Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Application, Vol. 2, Robin Fawcett & David Young (eds), 6–38. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  352. Neumann, Stella
    2010 Quantitative register analysis across languages. InThresholds and Potentialities of Systemic Functional Linguistics: Multilingual, Multimodal and Other Specialised Discourses, Elizabeth Swain (ed.), 85–113. Trieste: EUT Edizioni.
    [Google Scholar]
  353. Neumann, Stella 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: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110260328.191
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.191 [Google Scholar]
  354. 2013Contrastive Register Variation. A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110238594
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238594 [Google Scholar]
  355. 2014 Cross-linguistic register studies: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Languages in Contrast14(1): 35–57. 10.1075/lic.14.1.03neu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.03neu [Google Scholar]
  356. Newmark, Peter
    1988A Textbook of Translation. New York NY: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  357. Nome, Astrid & Hobæk Haff, Marianne
    2011 Une analyse contrastive de “donc.”Oslo Studies in Language3(1): 47–67. 10.5617/osla.184
    https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.184 [Google Scholar]
  358. O’Donnell, Michael
    2009 The UAM CorpusTool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. InApplied 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]
  359. Osborne, John
    2008 Adverb placement in post-intermediate learner English: A contrastive study of learner corpora. InLinking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, Gaëtanelle Gilquin , Szilvia Papp & María Belén Díez-Bedmar (eds), 127–146. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401206204_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_006 [Google Scholar]
  360. Øverås, Linn
    1998 In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta43(4): 557–570. 10.7202/003775ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar [Google Scholar]
  361. Oversteegen, Leonoor
    1997 On the pragmatic nature of causal and contrastive connectives. Discourse Processes24(1): 51–85. 10.1080/01638539709545007
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545007 [Google Scholar]
  362. Pander Maat, Henk & Degand, Liesbeth
    2001 Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics12(3): 211–245. 10.1515/cogl.2002.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.002 [Google Scholar]
  363. Paquot, Magali
    2010Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  364. Pekelder, Jan
    2010 Le tertium comparationis en linguistique contrastive. Problèmes et méthodes. Linguistica Pragensia20(1): 22–37. 10.2478/v10017‑010‑0002‑6
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10017-010-0002-6 [Google Scholar]
  365. Petukhova, Volha & Bunt, Harry
    2009 Towards a multidimensional semantics of discourse markers in spoken dialogue. InProceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS-8 ‘09), 157–168. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1693756.1693773
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1693756.1693773 [Google Scholar]
  366. Pit, Mirna
    2007 Cross-linguistic analyses of backward causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Languages in Contrast7(1): 53–82. 10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit [Google Scholar]
  367. Plonsky, Luke & Oswald, Frederick
    2014 How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning64(4): 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  368. Plum, Guenther & Cowling, Ann
    1987 Social constraints on grammatical variables: Tense choice in English. InLanguage Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Vol. 2, Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold (eds), 281–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.lt2.66plu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.lt2.66plu [Google Scholar]
  369. Poncharal, Bruno
    2005 Etude contrastive de la structuration du discours en anglais et en français dans des textes de sciences humaines. InActes 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]
  370. Poncharal, Bruno 2007 Cohérence discursive en anglais et en français: Fonction des connecteurs dans la traduction. InLes connecteurs, jalons du discours, Agnès Celle , Stéphane Gresset & Ruth Huart (eds), 117–136. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  371. Prasad, Rashmi , Dinesh, Nikhil , Lee, Alan , Miltsakaki, Eleni , Robaldo, Livio , Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie
    2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). Marrakech, Morocco.
    [Google Scholar]
  372. Prasad, Rashmi , Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie
    2010 Realization of discourse relations by other means: Alternative lexicalizations. InColing2010: Poster Volume, 1023–1031. Beijing.
    [Google Scholar]
  373. Prince, Ellen
    1997 On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse. InDirections in Functional Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series 36], Akio Kamio (ed.), 117–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.36.08pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.36.08pri [Google Scholar]
  374. Quillard, Geneviève
    1997 Étude de certaines différences dans l’organisation collective des textes pragmatiques anglais et français. Babel43(4): 313–330. 10.1075/babel.43.4.04qui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.43.4.04qui [Google Scholar]
  375. Quirk, Randolph , Greenbaum, Sidney , Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
    1972A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  376. 1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  377. Ramón García, Noelia
    2002 Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies interconnected: The corpus-based approach. InLinguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies1, Leona van Vaerenbergh (ed.), 393–406. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
    [Google Scholar]
  378. Ravelli, Louise
    1995 A dynamic perspective: implications for metafunctional interaction and an understanding of Theme. InOn Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 40], Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter Fries (eds), 187–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.118.07rav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.118.07rav [Google Scholar]
  379. R Development Core Team
    2008R: A Language and Eenvironment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org (28 September 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  380. Régent, Odile
    1980 Approche comparative des discours de spécialité pour l’entraînement à l’anglais écrit. Mélanges Pédagogiques1: 117–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  381. 1992 Pratiques de communication en médecine: Contextes anglais et français. Langages26(105): 66–75. 10.3406/lgge.1992.1624
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1992.1624 [Google Scholar]
  382. 1994 L’article scientifique: Un produit culturel. ASp. la revue du GERAS5–6: 55–59. 10.4000/asp.4017
    https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4017 [Google Scholar]
  383. Rey, Joëlle
    1999 Approche argumentative des textes scientifiques: La traduction de “or” en espagnol. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs44(3): 411–428. 10.7202/003946ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003946ar [Google Scholar]
  384. Riegel, Martin , Pellat, Jean-Christophe & Rioul, René
    2001Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  385. Rivelin-Constantin, Eve
    1992 La thématisation en français et en anglais: Une étude contrastive. InLinguistique contrastive et traduction, Vol. 1, Jacqueline Guillemin-Flescher (ed.), 159–204. Gap: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  386. Rørvik, Sylvi & Egan, Thomas
    2013 Connectors in the argumentative writing of Norwegian novice writers. InTwenty 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]
  387. Rossette, Fiona 2007 Connecteurs, enchaînements discursifs et lisibilité en anglais: Quelques pistes de réflexion. InLes connecteurs, jalons du discours, Agnès Celle , Stéphane Gresset & Ruth Huart (eds), 11–42. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  388. 2009 Thème, conjonction et cohésion: Corrélations entre les différents composants de la métafonction textuelle en français. InLa linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks , Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds), 9–42. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  389. Roze, Charlotte , Danlos, Laurence & Muller, Philippe
    2012 LEXCONN: A French Lexicon of Discourse Connectives. Discours10. 10.4000/discours.8645
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.8645 [Google Scholar]
  390. Rubattel, Christian
    1982 De la syntaxe des connecteurs pragmatiques. Cahiers de Linguistique Française4: 37–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  391. Rudolph, Elisabeth
    1996Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Relations and Their Expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110815856
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815856 [Google Scholar]
  392. Ruquet, Michel , Quoy-Bodin, Jean-Luc & Cayol, Micheline
    1991Comment dire? Raisonner à la française. Paris: Clé International.
    [Google Scholar]
  393. Rysová, Magdalena & Rysová, Katerina
    2014 The centre and periphery of discourse connectives. In28th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 452–459. Phuket, Thailand.
    [Google Scholar]
  394. Sajavaara, Kari
    1996 New challenges for contrastive linguistics. InLanguages 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]
  395. Salkie, Raphael
    2008 How can lexicographers use a translation corpus?InProceedings 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]
  396. Salkie, Raphael & Oates, Sarah Louise
    1999 Contrast and concession in French and English. Languages in Contrast2(1): 27–56. 10.1075/lic.2.1.04sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.2.1.04sal [Google Scholar]
  397. Salkoff, Morris
    1999A French-English Grammar: A Contrastive Grammar on Translational Principles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lis.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.22 [Google Scholar]
  398. Sanders, Ted J. M.
    1997 Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes24(1): 119–147. 10.1080/01638539709545009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545009 [Google Scholar]
  399. 2005 Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InProceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Biarritz, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  400. 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). 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0078 [Google Scholar]
  401. Sanders, Ted J.M & Spooren, Wilbert
    2007 Discourse and text structure. InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 916–943. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  402. Sanders, Ted J.M , Spooren, Wilbert & Noordman, Leo
    1992 Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes15: 1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  403. Schiffrin, Deborah 2006 Discourse. InAn Introduction to Language and Linguistics, Ralph W. Fasold & Jeff Connor-Linton (eds), 169–203. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  404. Schiffrin, Deborah , Tannen, Deborah & Hamilton, Heidi
    2015 Introduction. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen , Heidi Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 1–7. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  405. Schilperoord, Joost & Verhagen, Arie
    1998 Conceptual dependency and the clausal structure of discourse. InDiscourse and Cognition. Bridging the Gap, Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), 141–163. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  406. Schmied, Josef
    2009 Contrastive corpus studies. InCorpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds), 1140–1159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  407. Schourup, Lawrence
    1999 Discourse markers. Lingua107(3): 227–265. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  408. Scott, Mike
    2012WordSmith Tools 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  409. Sharoff, Serge
    2017 Corpus and systemic functional linguistics. InThe Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 533–546. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  410. Sinclair, John
    1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  411. 2004Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203594070
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203594070 [Google Scholar]
  412. Smith, Raoul & Frawley, William
    1983 Conjunctive cohesion in four English genres. Text3(4): 347–374. 10.1515/text.1.1983.3.4.347
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1983.3.4.347 [Google Scholar]
  413. Spooren, Wilbert & Degand, Liesbeth
    2010 Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory6(2): 241–266. 10.1515/cllt.2010.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.009 [Google Scholar]
  414. Staples, Shelley , Egbert, Jesse , Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
    2015 Register variation. A corpus approach. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen , Heidi Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 505–525. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  415. Steen, Gerard
    2003 Conversationalization in discourse: Stylistic changes in editorials of The Times between 1950 and 2000. InDetermination 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]
  416. Stoye, Hélène
    2014Les connecteurs contenant des prépositions en français: Profils sémantiques et pragmatiques en synchronie et diachronie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  417. Struck, Herman R.
    1965 The myth about initial conjunctions. The English Journal54(1): 42–44. 10.2307/810944
    https://doi.org/10.2307/810944 [Google Scholar]
  418. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  419. Taboada, Maite
    2006 Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics38(4): 567–592. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  420. 2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InDiscourse, of Course, Jan Renkema (ed.), 127–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.148.13tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.13tab [Google Scholar]
  421. Taboada, Maite & Gómez-González, María de los Ángeles
    2012 Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences6: 17–41. 10.1558/lhs.v6i1‑3.17
    https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.17 [Google Scholar]
  422. Taglicht, Josef
    1984Message and Emphasis: On Focus and Scope in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  423. Takagaki, Yumi
    2011Les plans d’organisation textuelle en français et en japonais: De la rhétorique contrastive à la linguistique textuelle. Rouen: Editions universitaires européennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  424. Tankó, Gyula 2004 The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’ argumentative essays. InHow to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics12], John Sinclair (ed.), 157–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.12.13tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.12.13tan [Google Scholar]
  425. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    2006Collaborating Towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 146] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.146 [Google Scholar]
  426. Taylor, Charlotte
    2008 What is corpus linguistics? What the data says. ICAME Journal32: 179–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  427. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  428. 2009 Linguistic computing. InContinuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics, Michael A. K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds), 113–127. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  429. 2013 Choices in analysing choice: Methods and techniques for register analysis. InSystemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, Lise Fontaine , Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 417–431. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139583077.025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.025 [Google Scholar]
  430. Teich, Elke , Eckart, Richard & Holtz, Monica
    2006 Systemic Functional corpus resources: Issues in development and deployment. InProceedings of the Fifth International Treebanks and Linguistic Theories Conference (TLT 06), 247–258. Prague.
    [Google Scholar]
  431. Teubert, Wolfgang
    1996 Comparable or parallel corpora?International Journal of Lexicography9(3): 238–264. 10.1093/ijl/9.3.238
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/9.3.238 [Google Scholar]
  432. Thompson, Geoff
    2014Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203785270
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203785270 [Google Scholar]
  433. Thompson, Geoff & Hunston, Susan
    2006a System and corpus: two traditions with a common ground. InSystem and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 1–14. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  434. 2006bSystem and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  435. 2008 Theme, subject and the unfolding of text. InText Type and Texture, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds), 45–69. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  436. Thompson, Geoff & Zhou, Jianglin
    2001 Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds), 121–141. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  437. Tierney, Robert & Mosenthal, James
    1983 Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English17(3): 215–229.
    [Google Scholar]
  438. Tizón-Couto, David
    2012Left Dislocation in English: A Functional-Discoursal Approach. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  439. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena
    2001Corpus Linguistics at Work [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6 [Google Scholar]
  440. Touratier, Christian
    2006 Que faut-il entendre par “connecteur”?InLa connexion et les connecteurs. La phrase existentielle, Christian Touratier & Jean-Marie Merle (eds), 19–40. Université de Provence. Provence.
    [Google Scholar]
  441. Travis, Catherine & Torres Cacoullos, Rena
    2012 Discourse syntax. InThe Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, José Ignacio Hualde , Antxon Olarrea & Erin O’Rourke (eds), 653–672. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118228098.ch30
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118228098.ch30 [Google Scholar]
  442. Trévise, Anne 1986 Is it transferable, topicalization?InCrosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, Eric Kellerman & Michael Sharwood Smith (eds), 86–206. New York NY: Pergamon Institute of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  443. Tucker, Gordon
    2006 Systemic incorporation: On the relationship between corpus and systemic functional grammar. InSystem and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 81–102. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  444. 2009 Towards a lexicogrammar of war: A corpus-based systemic functional investigation of the French lexical item “guerre.”InLa linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks , Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds), 195–222. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  445. Vandepitte, Sonia & De Sutter, Gert
    2013 Contrastive linguistics and translation studies. InHandbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 4, Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds), 36–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.4.con4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.4.con4 [Google Scholar]
  446. Van der Auwera, Johan
    2012 From contrastive linguistics to linguistic typology. Languages in Contrast12(1): 69–86. 10.1075/lic.12.1.05auw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.1.05auw [Google Scholar]
  447. Van Dijk, Teun
    1979 Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics3: 447–456. 10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  448. Van Hoof, Henri
    1989Traduire l’anglais: Théorie et pratique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
    [Google Scholar]
  449. Van de Voorde, Katrien
    1992 De deux à trois “mais”: Essai de vérification des approches d’Anscombre et Ducrot et de Blumenthal. Travaux de Linguistique24: 57–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  450. Verhagen, Arie
    2000 Concession implies causality, though in some other space. InCause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 361–380. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.4.361
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.361 [Google Scholar]
  451. 2001 Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. InText Representation: Linguistic and Psychological Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], Ted J. M. Sanders , Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds), 337–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.18ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.18ver [Google Scholar]
  452. Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean
    1995Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  453. Virtanen, Tuija
    1992Discourse 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]
  454. 2005 “Polls and surveys show”: Public opinion as a persuasive device in editorial discourse. InPersuasion across Genres: A Linguistic Approach [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 130], Elena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 153–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.130.10vir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.10vir [Google Scholar]
  455. Wang, Jianxin
    2011 Contrastive Connectors in English and Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study. PhD dissertation, University of Auckland.
    [Google Scholar]
  456. Westin, Ingrid
    2002Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004334007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334007 [Google Scholar]
  457. White, Lydia
    1991 Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin7(2): 133–161. 10.1177/026765839100700205
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700205 [Google Scholar]
  458. Widdowson, Henry G.
    1978Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  459. Willems, Dominique , Defrancq, Bart , Colleman, Timothy & Noël, Dirk 2004Contrastive Analysis in Language. Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  460. Wu, Canzhong
    2009 Corpus-based research. InContinuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics, Michael A. K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds), 128–142. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  461. Xiao, Richard
    2010a How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? A corpus-based study of translation universals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(1): 5–35. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia [Google Scholar]
  462. 2010bUsing Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  463. Xiao, Richard & Yue, Ming
    2009 Using corpora in translation studies: The state of the art. InContemporary Corpus Linguistics, Paul Baker (ed.), 237–262. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  464. Xi, Yan
    2010 Cohesion studies in the past 30 years: Development, application and chaos. Language, Society and Culture31: 139–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  465. Zimmerman, Donald W.
    2003 A warning about the large-sample Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Understanding Statistics2(4): 267–280. 10.1207/S15328031US0204_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0204_03 [Google Scholar]
  466. Zinn, Jens & McDonald, Daniel
    2018Risk in The New York Times (1987–2014). A Corpus-based Exploration of Sociological Theories. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑64158‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64158-4 [Google Scholar]
  467. Zinsser, William K.
    2001On Writing Well, 25th Anniversary: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. New York NY: Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  468. Ziv, Yael
    1994 Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics22(6): 629–645. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90033‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90033-7 [Google Scholar]
  469. Zufferey, Sandrine
    2012 “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics44(2): 138–153. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018 [Google Scholar]
  470. 2016 Discourse connectives across languages: Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation. Languages in Contrast16(2): 264–279. 10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf [Google Scholar]
  471. Zufferey, Sandrine & Cartoni, Bruno
    2012 English and French causal connectives in contrast. Languages in Contrast12(2): 232–250. 10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf [Google Scholar]
  472. Zufferey, Sandrine & Degand, Liesbeth
    2017 Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory13(2): 399–422. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0022 [Google Scholar]
  473. Zufferey, Sandrine , Degand, Liesbeth , Popescu-Belis, Andrei & Sanders, Ted J. M.
    2012 Empirical validations of multilingual annotation schemes for discourse relations. InProceedings of the 8th Joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, Harry Bunt (ed.), 77–84. Pisa, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  474. Zufferey, Sandrine & Gygax, Pascal
    2016 The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes53(7): 532–555. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839 [Google Scholar]
  475. 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 Research31(3): 389–411. 10.1177/0267658315573349
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315573349 [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