1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In many languages, conjunctive adjuncts (e.g. ) are syntactically mobile. Several corpus-based contrastive studies have shown that languages differ in the positions that they tend to prefer for conjunctive adjuncts. However, the studies available have formulated general cross-linguistic differences in placement for languages as wholes, without considering the possibility that such contrasts may be influenced by register. The objective of this paper is to investigate and compare the placement patterns of English and French conjunctive adjuncts of contrast in two written registers (viz. editorials and research articles) in order to measure the impact of register variation on the differences between these two languages. The results suggest that, although register variation plays a significant role on placement within each language system, language is a better predictor of placement than register, since cross-linguistic differences in placement between English and French are stable across communicative situations. In a second stage, the results obtained in the comparable corpus study are complemented with the analysis of translation data, with a view to assessing the translators’ degree of awareness of the inherent word order preferences of the target language. The study is grounded in the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics and relies on the notions of Theme and Rheme to describe conjunctive adjunct placement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00018.dup
2020-10-06
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altenberg, B.
    2006 The Function of Adverbial Connectors in Second Initial Position in English and Swedish. InPragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 11–37. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Balažic Bulc, T. and Gorjanc, V.
    2015 The Position of Connectors in Slovene and Croatian Student Academic Writing: A Corpus-Based Approach. InMeaning Making in Text, S. Starc , C. Jones and A. Maiorani (eds), 51–71. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137477309_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137477309_4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Banks, D.
    2017A Systemic Functional Grammar of French. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315228327
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315228327 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barlow, M.
    2008 Parallel Texts and Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis. InStudies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, M. Gómez González , J. Mackenzie and E. González Álvarez (eds), 101–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berry, M.
    1996 What is Theme? A(nother) Personal View. InMeaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations, M. Berry , C. Butler , R. Fawcett and G. Huang (eds), 1–64. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D.
    1988Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
    1999The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Breiman, L. , Friedman, J. , Olshen, R. and Stone, C.
    1984Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Burnard, L.
    (ed.) 2008Reference Guide to the BNC Baby. Available atwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/corpus/baby/manual.pdf [last accessed20 January 2020].
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Butler, C.
    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]
  11. Caffarel, A.
    2006A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: From Grammar to Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Caffarel-Cayron, A. and Rechniewski, E.
    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]
  13. Dupont, M.
    2015 Word Order in English and French: The Position of English and French Adverbial Connectors of Contrast. English Text Construction8(1): 88–124. 10.1075/etc.8.1.04dup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.8.1.04dup [Google Scholar]
  14. forthcoming. Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French. From Syntax to Lexis and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eggins, S.
    1994An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Elgemark, A.
    2017 To the very End. A Contrastive Study of N-Rhemes in English and Swedish Translations. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg.
  17. Fries, P.
    1994 On Theme, Rheme and Discourse Goals. InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed.), 229–249. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1995 A Personal View of Theme. InThematic Development in English Texts, M. Ghadessy (ed.), 1–19. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenbaum, S.
    1969Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, M. 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]
  21. Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.
    1989Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C.
    2014Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasselgård, H.
    2010Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511676253
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676253 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyland, K.
    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]
  25. Johansson, S.
    2007Seeing Through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kunz, K. and Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    2014 Cohesive Conjunctions in English and German: Systemic Contrasts and Textual Differences. InRecent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora, L. Vandelanotte , K. Davidse , C. Gentens and D. Kimps (eds), 229–262. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401211130_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401211130_012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lefer, M.-A. and Vogeleer, S.
    (eds) 2014 Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast. Special issue ofLanguages in Contrast14(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lenker, U.
    2014 Knitting and Splitting Information: Medial Placement of Linking Adverbials in the History of English. InContact, Variation and Change in the History of English, S. Pfenninger , O. Timofeeva , A.-C. Gardner , A. Honkapohja , M. Hundt and D. Schreier (eds), 11–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Morel, M.-A. and Danon-Boileau, L.
    1998Grammaire de l’Intonation. L’Exemple du Français Oral. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Neumann, S.
    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]
  31. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Roze, C. , Danlos, L. and Muller, P.
    2012 LEXCONN: A French Lexicon of Discourse Connectives. Discours10. Available athttps://journals.openedition.org/discours/8645 [last accessed31 January 2020].
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Scott, M.
    2012WordSmith Tools6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Teich, E.
    2003Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  35. Thompson, Geoff
    2014Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203785270
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203785270 [Google Scholar]
  36. Thompson, G. and Hunston, S.
    2006 System and Corpus: Two Traditions with a Common Ground. InSystem and Corpus: Exploring Connections, G. Thompson and S. Hunston (eds), 1–14. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 Theme, Subject and the Unfolding of Text. InText Type and Texture, G. Forey and G. Thompson (eds), 45–69. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Vanderauwera, R.
    1985Dutch Novels Translated into English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00018.dup
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00018.dup
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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