Contrastive Pragmatics and Translation

Evaluation, epistemic modality and communicative styles in English and German

| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027256669 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027267276 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
 
This book provides the first comprehensive account of English-German pragmatic contrasts in written discourse and their effects on English-German translations. The novel and multi-dimensional corpus-based studies of business communication and popular science writing presented in this book combine quantitative and qualitative approaches and focus on the use of evaluative adjectives and epistemic modal markers. They provide empirical evidence that English and German differ in systematic ways and that translations, while being adapted to target audience’s preferences to a large extent, are clearly susceptible to source language interference when it comes to more fine-grained differences. The book discusses which general factors determine the degree of impact of source language features on translations and also comments on the possibility of source language influence on target language norms via translations. The book is of interest to researchers and students in a variety of fields, such as pragmatics, translation studies, genre analysis and stylistics.
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 261]  2016.  xiv, 204 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.261
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
ix–x
List of tables
xi–xii
List of figures
xiii–xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–16
Chapter 2. General hypotheses, data and methods
17–22
Chapter 3. The five dimensions of English-German communicative contrasts
23–28
Chapter 4. Contrastive perspectives on English-German pragmatic and stylistic contrasts
29–50
Chapter 5. The impact of English-German pragmatic and stylistic contrasts on translations
51–66
Chapter 6. English-German contrasts in evaluative practice
67–94
Chapter 7. English-German contrasts in epistemic modal marking
95–164
Chapter 8. Translations as trigger of linguistic change? Changes in the genre of popular science in English texts, English-German translations and German originals
165–178
Chapter 9. Conclusion and outlook
179–190
References
191–202
Index
203–204
“This work contributes to the empirical research in contrastive linguistics by investigating the pragmatic dimensions of language contact between English and German on the one hand, and by shedding light on the influence of translations within this language pair and thus on language change through translated text on the other. Both aspects are highly innovative.”
“I highly recommend this empirical corpus-based study of the relationship between German-English pragmatic contrasts, translation and language change.”
“This book offers an in-depth analysis of pragmatic contrasts found in English and German business communication and popular scientific writings and their rendition in translations. It throws light on the different rhetorical strategies used in English and German letters to shareholders and popular scientific articles and proves that formal and functional systemic differences are more prone to adaptation in translations and original texts than pragmatic contrasts. The study provides invaluable guidelines for translators and their trainers, who should be aware not only of structural contrasts between languages but also pragmatic and stylistic ones.”
“The book is very readable and well structured. It provides useful insights into communicative practices in two linguacultures and professional communities and convincingly indicates where translators should concentrate when working between English and German.”
“Kranich’s volume is a very valuable, well-documented and well-written work on contrastive pragmatics and translation, offering innovative approaches and convincing analyses and interpretations. The study helps paving the way for more research in this area, adopting a similar approach while focusing on a larger variety of linguistic features, linguacultures and genres. The book will prove particularly inspiring for scholars in pragmatics and translation studies, and it may also be interesting for English-German translators as well as university students with German and English in their curriculum.”
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
Fronhofer, Nina-Maria
2019.  In Emotion in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 302], ► pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo
Verschueren, Jef
2016.  In Handbook of Pragmatics, Crossref logo
Yue, Yan & Canzhong Wu
2021. Epistemic stance in the translations of Chinese medicine classics: a case study of Huang Di Nei Jing . Text & Talk 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 march 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Adamson, Sylvia
2000 “A Lovely Little Example: Word Options and Category Shift in the Premodifying String.” In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalisation in English, ed. by Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, 39–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, Jörn
2005 Übersetzung und Linguistik. Grundlagen der Übersetzungsforschung. Vol. 2. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
1996 “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” In Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael
1995 “ParaConc: A Concordancer for Parallel Texts.” Computers and Text 10: 14–16.Google Scholar
2009 ParaConc and Parallel Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Houston, TX: Athelstan Publications.Google Scholar
Barron, Anne
2008 “The Structure of Requests in Irish English and English English”. In Variational Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron, 35–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole
2007 “Converging Conventions? Macrosyntactic Conjunction with English and and German und .” Text and Talk 27: 139–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Writer Construction in English and German Popularized Academic Discourse: The Uses of we and wir .” Multilingua 27: 409–438. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, Juliane House, and Julia Probst
2004 “English as Lingua Franca in Covert Translation Processes.” The Translator 10: 83–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, and Demet Özçetin
2008 “Linguistic Variation Through Language Contact in Translation.” In Language Contact and Contact Languages, ed. by Peter Siemund, and Noemi Kintana, 293–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor
2009 “The Decline of damit in English-German Translations. A Diachronic Perspective on Source Language Interference.” SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 4: 2–24.Google Scholar
2010a “Abandoning the Notion of “Translation-Inherent” Explicitation. Against a Dogma of Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures 11: 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b “Towards a More Rigorous Treatment of the Explicitation Hypothesis in Translation Studies.” trans-kom 3: 1–25.Google Scholar
2010c “Differences in the Use of Deictic Expressions in English and German Texts.” Linguistics 48: 1309–1342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation. A Corpus-Based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD Thesis: University of Hamburg. Accessible online under http://​ediss​.sub​.uni‑hamburg​.de​/volltexte​/2011​/5321​/pdf​/Dissertation​.pdf. Date last accessed: March, 02, 2015.Google Scholar
Becher, Viktor, Juliane House, and Svenja Kranich
2009 “Convergence and Divergence of Communicative Norms Through Language Contact in Translation.” In Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations, ed. by Kurt Braunmüller, and Juliane House, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Annette
2009 “Modality and Engagement in British and German Political Interviews.” Languages in Contrast 9: 5–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Bergljot
2005 “Cohesive Ties in Translation: A Contrastive Study of the Norwegian Connective dermed .” Languages in Contrast 5: 3–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan
1984 “Language Style as Audience Design.” Language and Society 13: 145–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bextermöller, Matthias
2001 Empirisch-linguistische Analyse des Geschäftsberichts. PhD Thesis: University of Duisburg.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1995 Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edgar Finegan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper
1989 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1967 “Adjectives in English: Attribution and Predication.” Lingua 18: 1‑34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolten, Jürgen
2001 “Kann man Kulturen beschreiben oder erklären, ohne Stereotypen zu verwenden?” Interculture Online 1. Accessible online at http://​www2​.uni‑jena​.de​/philosophie​/iwk​/publikationen​/kulturbeschreibung​.pdf.
Bolten, Jürgen, Marion Dathe, Susanne Kirchmeyer, Marc Roennau, Peter Witchalls, and Sabine Ziebell-Drabo
1996 “Interkulturalität, Interlingualität und Standardisierung bei der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit von Unternehmen. Gezeigt an amerikanischen, britischen, deutschen, französischen und russischen Geschäftsberichten.” In Fachliche Textsorten. Komponenten – Relationen – Strategien, ed. by Klaus-Dieter Baumann, and Hartwig Kalverkämper, 389–425. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Böttger, Claudia
2007 Lost in Translation? An Analysis of the Role of English as the Lingua Franca of Multilingual Business Communication. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Böttger, Claudia and Kristin Bührig
2003 “Translating Obligation in Business Communication.” In Speaking in Tongues: Languages across Contexts and Users, ed. by Luis Pérez González, 161–185. University of Valencia: PUV.Google Scholar
Böttger, Claudia, and Kristin Bührig
2004 “Financial Communication, Translation and Text Forms: A Contrastive Analysis of US-American and German Letters to Shareholders.” In Discourse, Communication and the Enterprise, ed. by Carlos Gouveia, Carminda Silvestre, and Luísa Azuaga, 233–243. Lisbon: Ulices (University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies).Google Scholar
2007 “La communication économique et les traductions.” In Langue, Économie, Entreprise. Le Travail des Mots, ed. by Irmtraut Behr, Dieter Hentschel, and Michel Kauffmann, 269–283. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Bührig, Kristin, and Juliane House
2004 “Connectivity in Translation: Transitions from Orality to Literacy.” In Multilingual Communication, ed. by Juliane House, and Jochen Rehbein, 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Linking Constructions in Discourse across Languages.” In Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, and Lukas Pietsch, 345–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, Heidi
1986 “Interactional Style in German and American Conversations.” Text 6: 189–206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Vittorina, and Magda Stroińska
1997 “Systems of Reference in Intellectual Discourse: A Potential Source of Intercultural Stereotypes.” In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, ed. by Anna Duszak, 141–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Channell, Joanna
2001 “Corpus-Based Analysis of Evaluative Lexis.” In Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 38–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clemen, Gudrun
1997 “The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions.” In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 235–248. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael
1987 “Cultural Differences in the Organization of Academic Texts. English and German.” Journal of Pragmatics 11: 211–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “The Sociocultural Dimension. The Dilemma of the German-Speaking Scholar.” In Subject-Oriented Texts. Languages for Special Purposes and Text Theory, ed. by Hartmut Schröder, 49–67. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Inter-Cultural Communication at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2003 Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1995 “The Expression of Root and Epistemic Possibility in English.” In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by Joan Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischmann, 55–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crismore, Avon, and Rodney Farnsworth
1990 “Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse.” In The Writing Scholar. Studies in Academic Discourse, ed. by Walter Nash, 118–136. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Crismore, Avon, and William J. Vande Kopple
1997 “Hedges and Readers: Effects on Attitudes and Learning.” In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 83–113. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic Categories and the Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
2009 “Not-yet-Factual at Time t: A Neglected Modal Concept.” In Modality in English. Theory and Description, ed. by Raphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil, and Johan van der Auwera, 31–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David
1993 English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
De Waard, Jan, and Eugene A. Nida
1986 From One Language to Another. Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Nelson Publishers.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
1999 Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “On Some Problem Areas in Grammaticalization Theory.” In Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues, ed. by Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, and Ekkehard König, 17–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1982 Where Have all the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika
1995 “Prinzipien und Parameter als Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Theorie der vergleichenden Stilistik.” In Stilfragen, ed. by Gerhard Stickel, 181–197. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001 “Discourse Relators and the Beginnings of Sentences in English and German.” Languages in Contrast 3: 223–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Language Processing in Discourse. A Key to Felicitous Translation. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Structural Propensities: Translating Nominal Word Groups from English into German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duszak, Anna
1997 “Cross-Cultural Academic Communication: A Discourse-Community View.” In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, ed. by Anna Duszak, 11–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed) 1997 Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad
2000 “Wissenschaftsstile, Wissenschaftssprache und ihre (wissens-) soziologischen Hintergründe.” In Einstellungsforschung in der Soziolinguistik und in den Nachbardisziplinen. Studies in Language Attitudes, ed. by Szilvia Deminger, Thorsten Fögen, Joachim Scharloth, and Simone Zwickel, 59–71. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Evans, Karin U. H.
1998 “Organizational Patterns of American and German Texts for Business and Economics: A Contrastive Study.” Journal of Pragmatics 29: 681–703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
2005 “Elusive Connectives: A Case Study on the Explicitness Dimension of Discourse Coherence.” Linguistics 43: 17–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne
1986 “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication 3: 275–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fandrych, Christian, and Gabriele Graefen
2002 “Text Commenting Devices in German and English Academic Articles.” Multilingua 21: 17–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Klaus
2013 Satzstrukturen im Deutschen und Englischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti
1998 “Le Mot du P.D.G. – descriptif ou polémique?” In Discours Professionnels en Français, ed. by Yves Gambier, 105–122. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti, Inge B. Hemmingsen, and Unni P. Pereira
1994 “Readability in English, French and German ‘Chairman’s Statement’.” In Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research. Vol. 2, ed. by Robert M. W. Dixon, 729–737. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Frawley, William
1984 “Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation.” In Translation: Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. by William Frawley, 159–175. London: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul
1989 “Language, Ideology, and Political Economy.” American Anthropologist 91: 295–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galtung, Johan
1981 “Structure, Culture, and Intellectual Style: An Essay Comparing Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic, and Nipponic Approaches.” Social Science Information 20: 817–856. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 “Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller Stil. Ein vergleichender Essay über sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft.” In Das Fremde und das Eigene: Prolegomena zu einer Interkulturellen Germanistik, ed. by Alois Wierlacher, 151–196. München: Iudicium-Verlag.Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana
2004 “Annual Company Reports and CEO’s Letters: Discoursal Features and Cultural Markedness.” In Intercultural Aspects of Specialized Communication, ed. by Christopher Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti, 311–341. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2005 “Letters to Shareholders and Chairman’s Statements: Textual Variability and Generic Integrity.” In Genre Variation in Business Letters, ed. by Paul Gillaerts, and Maurizio Gotti, 179–204. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gläser, Rosemarie
1990 Fachtextsorten im Englischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gohr, Martina
2002 Geschäftsbericht und Aktionärsbrief – eine textsortenlinguistische Analyse mit anwendungsbezogenen Aspekten. PhD Thesis: University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
González Díaz, Victorina
2008 English Adjective Comparison. A Historical Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, William, and Robert Kaplan
1997 “On the Writing of Science and the Science of Writing: Hedging in Science Text and Elsewhere.” In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 151–167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Graefen, Gabriele
2000 “Textkommentierung in deutschen und englischen wissenschaftlichen Artikeln.” In Sprache und Kultur, ed. by Horst-Dieter Schlosser, 113–124. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Grieve, Averil
2010 “ ‘Aber ganz ehrlich’: Differences in Episodic Structure, Apologies and Truth-Orientation in German and Australian Workplace Telephone Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 190–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia
2011 “Between Normalization and Shining through: Specific Properties of English-German Translations and Their Influence on the Target Language.” In Multilingual Discourse Production. Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, ed. by Svenja Kranich, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder, and Juliane House, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann, and Erich Steiner
2007 “Cohesive Explicitness and Explicitation in an English-German Translation Corpus.” Languages in Contrast 7: 241–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Sandra Hansen, Sascha Wolfer, and Lars Konieczny
2009 “Fachkommunikation, Popularisierung, Übersetzung: Empirische Vergleiche am Beispiel der Nominalphrase im Englischen und Deutschen.” Linguistik Online 39: 109–118.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann, and Erich Steiner
(eds) 2012 Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations. Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1986 A Comparative Typology of English and German. Unifying the Contrasts. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Höder, Steffen
2010 Sprachausbau im Sprachkontakt. Syntaktischer Wandel im Altschwedischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael
2001 Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert
1980 Culture’s Consequences. International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
2002 “Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney.” Human Relations 55: 1355–1361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane
1977 A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1979 “Interaktionsnormen in deutschen und englischen Alltagsdialogen.” Linguistische Berichte 59: 76–90.Google Scholar
1982 “Opening and Closing Phases in English and German Dialogues.” Grazer Linguistische Studien 16: 52–83.Google Scholar
1989 “ ‘Oh Excuse Me Please…’: Apologizing in a Foreign Language.” In Englisch als Zweitsprache, ed. by Bernhard Kettemann, Peter Bierbaumer, Alwin Fill, and Annemarie Karpf, 303–327. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1996 “Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Misunderstanding: The Case of German and English.” In Contrastive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Marlis Hellinger, and Ulrich Ammon, 345–361. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1998a “Kontrastive Pragmatik und interkulturelle Kompetenz im Fremdsprachenunterricht.” In Kontrast und Äquivalenz. Beiträge zu Sprachvergleich und Übersetzung, ed. by Wolfgang Börner, and Klaus Vogel, 162–189. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1998b “Politeness and Translation.” In The Pragmatics of Translation, ed. by Leo Hickey, 54–71. Clevedon: Avon.Google Scholar
2004 “Linguistic Aspects of the Translation of Children’s Books.” In Übersetzung. Translation. Traduction. An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Harald Kittel, Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner, Theo Hermans, Werner Koller, José Lambert, and Fritz Paul, in association with Juliane House, and Brigitte Schultze, 683–697. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2006 “Communicative Styles in English and German.” European Journal of English Studies 10: 249–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Covert Translation and Language Contact and Change.” The Chinese Translators Journal 28: 17–26.Google Scholar
2008a “Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation?” trans-kom 1: 6–19.Google Scholar
2008b “Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural Encounters in Everyday and Institutional Talk.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7: 561–595.Google Scholar
2009 Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011a “Using Translation and Parallel Text Corpora to Investigate the Influence of Global English on Textual Norms in Other Languages.” In Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Research and Applications, ed. by Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach, and Jeremy Munday, 187–210. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2011b “Linking Constructions in English and German Translated and Original Texts.” In Multilingual Discourse Production. Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, ed. by Svenja Kranich, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder, and Juliane House, 163–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane, and Gabriele Kasper
1981 “Politeness Markers in English and German.” In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. Vol. 2, ed. by Florian Coultmas, 157–185. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1987 “Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requesting in a Foreign Language.” In Perspectives on Language and Performance. Festschrift for Werner Hüllen, ed. by Rainer Schulze, 1250–1288. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan
2007a “Using a Corpus to Investigate Stance Quantitatively and Qualitatively.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 27–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007b “Semantic Prosody Revisited.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 249–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and John Sinclair
2001 “A Local Grammar of Evaluation.” In Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 74–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson
(eds) 2001 Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1994 “Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks.” English for Specific Purposes 13: 239–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles.” Applied Linguistics 17: 433–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “Boosting, Hedging, and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge”. Text 18: 349–382.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kammhuber, Stefan
1998 “Kulturstandards in der interkulturellen Kommunikation – Grobe Klötze oder nützliche Denkgriffe?” In Interkulturelle Kommunikation, ed. by Ingrid Jonach, 45–53. München: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, and Gregory Grefenstette
2003 “Web as Corpus.” Introduction to the Special Issue Web as Corpus . Computational Linguistics 29 (3). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga
2009 “The Asymmetry Hypothesis in Translation Research.” In Translators and Their Readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida, ed. by Rodica Dimitriu, and Miriam Shlesinger, 285–302. Paris: Les Éditions du Hasard.Google Scholar
Kohut, Gary F., and Albert H. Segars
1992 “The President’s Letter to Stockholders: An Examination of Corporate Communication Strategies.” The Journal of Business Communication 29: 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner
2004 “Der Begriff der Äquivalenz in der Übersetzungswissenschaft.” In Übersetzung. Translation. Traduction. An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Harald Kittel, Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner, Theo Hermans, Werner Koller, José Lambert, and Fritz Paul, 343–354. In association with Juliane House, and Brigitte Schultze. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. 8th ed. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard, and Volker Gast
2009 Understanding English-German Contrasts. Grundlagen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik. 2nd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Königs, Karin
2011 Übersetzen Englisch-Deutsch: Lernen mit System. 3rd ed. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja
2009 “Epistemic Modality in English Popular Scientific Articles and Their German Translations.” trans-kom 2: 26–41. Accessible online at http://​d‑nb​.info​/999839527​/34.Google Scholar
2011a “To Hedge or Not to Hedge. The Use of Epistemic Modal Expressions in Popular Science in English Texts, English-German Translations and German Original Texts.” Text and Talk 31: 77–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b “L’emploi des expressions épistémiques dans des lettres aux actionnaires en France, aux États-Unis et en Allemagne.” Langage et Société 137: 115–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014a “Translation as a Locus of Language Contact.” In Translation. A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. by Juliane House, 96–115. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “The Modals in Recent English. A Closer Look at may and must .” Work-in-progress-report at the ICAME 35, April 30 – May 05, 2014. Nottingham.
2014c “Recent Changes in Epistemic Modal Marking in Written English.” Paper presented at the 3rd ISLE (International Society of the Linguistics of English), August 24 – 27, 2014. Zurich.
Kranich, Svenja, Viktor Becher, and Steffen Höder
2011 “A Tentative Typology of Translation-Induced Language Change.” In Multilingual Discourse Production. Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, ed. by Svenja Kranich, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder, and Juliane House, 11–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, and Andrea Bicsár
2012 “These Forecasts May Be Substantially Different from Actual Results. The Use of Epistemic Modal Markers in English and German Original Letters to Shareholders and in English‐German Translations.” Linguistik Online 55. Accessible online at http://​www​.linguistik‑online​.org​/55​_12​/kranichBicsar​.html.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, and Victorina González Díaz
2009 “Appraisal Strategies: Recent Change and Cross-Cultural Tendencies.” Paper presented at the Workshop Appraisal Strategies, Research Center on Multilingualism, June 17, 2009. Hamburg.
2010 “Good, Great or Remarkable? Evaluation in English, German and Spanish Letters to Shareholders.” Paper presented at New Challenges for Multilingualism in Europe , April 11 – 15, 2010. Dubrovnik.
2012 “Translating Evaluation. A Corpus-Based Study of Business Communication.” Paper presented at the ICAME 33. Corpora at the Centre and Crossroads of English Linguistics , May 30 – June 03, 2012. Leuven.
Kranich, Svenja, Juliane House, and Viktor Becher
2012 “Changing Conventions in English-German Translations of Popular Scientific Texts.” In Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, ed. by Kurt Braunmüller, and Christoph Gabriel, 315–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, and Volker Gast. Forthc
Explicitness of Epistemic Modal Marking: Recent Changes in British and American English.” In Thinking Modally: English and Contrastive Studies on Modality ed. by Juan R. Zamorano-Mansilla, Carmen Maíz, Elena Domínguez, and María Victoria Martín de la Rosa Cambridge Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Kratzer, Angelika
1991 “Modality.” In Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Arnim von Stechow, and Dieter Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krein-Kühle, Marion
2014 “Translation and Equivalence.” In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. by Juliane House, 15–35. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kreutz, Heinz, and Annette Harres
1997 “Some Observations on the Distribution and Function of Hedging in German and English Academic Writing.” In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, ed. by Anna Duszak, 181–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin, and Erich Steiner
2013 “Cohesive Substitution in English and German. A Contrastive and Corpus-Based Perspective.” In Advances in Corpus-Based Contrastive Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Bengt Altenberg, 201–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1990 “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “Losing Control: Grammaticization, Subjectification, and Transparency.” In Historical Semantics and Cognition, ed. by Andreas Blank, and Peter Koch, 147–175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1972 “Hedges: A Study of Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Paul Peranteau, Judith Levi, and Gloria Phares, 183–228. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1998 “Universals of Translation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 288–291. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2002 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Erfurt: Arbeitspapiere der Universität Erfurt.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1979 Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Louw, Bill
1993 “Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies.” In Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2006 Twentieth-Century English. History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markkanen, Raija, and Hartmut Schröder
1989 “Hedging as a Translation Problem in Scientific Texts.” In Special Language. From Human Thinking to Thinking Machines, ed. by Christer Laurén, and Marianne Nordman, 171–175. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1997 “Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis.” In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 3–18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martin, James R.
1997 “Analysing Genre: Functional Parameters.” In Genre and Institutions. Social Processes in the Workplace and School, ed. by Frances Christie, and James R. Martin, 3–39. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2001 “Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English.” In Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Kazuhiro Teruya, and Marvin Lam
2010 Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
1997 “Hedging in Language Revisers’ Hands.” In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 115–133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McCallister, Linda, and Constance Bates
1986 “Language as a Proxy for the Study of Culturally Based Managerial Values: An Analysis of German and American Expression.” The Journal of Language for International Business 2: 1–14.Google Scholar
McSweeney, Brendan
2002a “Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – a Failure of Analysis.” Human Relations 55: 89–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002b “The Essentials of Scholarship: A Reply to Geert Hofstede.” Human Relations 55: 1363–1372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Paul Georg
1997 “Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strengthening the Argument by Weakening the Claim.” In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 21–41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Murphy, Amanda Clare
2013 “On “True” Portraits of Letters to Shareholders – and the Importance of Phraseological Analysis.” In Current Issues in Phraseology, ed. by Michaela Mahlberg. Special issue of the International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18: 57–80.Google Scholar
Myers, Greg
1989 “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles.” Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Namsaraev, Vasili
1997 “Hedging in Russian Academic Writing in Sociological Texts.” In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 64–79. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Neumann, Stella
2013 Contrastive Register Variation. A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, Catherine, and Elizabeth De Groot
2005 “Dear Shareholder, Dear Stockholder, Dear Stakeholder: The Business Letter Genre in the Annual General Report.” In Genre Variation in Business Letters, ed. by Paul Gillaerts, and Maurizio Gotti, 324–345. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964 Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Niederhauser, Jürg
1999 Wissenschaftssprache und Populärwissenschaftliche Vermittlung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank
2001 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita
1997 Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Partington, Alan
1998 Patterns and Meanings. Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “ ‘Utterly Content in Each Other’s Company’. Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 131–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Philip, Gill
2011 Colouring Meaning. Collocation and Connotation in Figurative Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pindi, Makaya, and Thomas Bloor
1987 “Playing Safe with Predictions: Hedging, Attribution and Conditions in Economic Forecasting.” In Written Language. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics Held at the University of Reading, September 1986, ed. by Thomas Bloor, and John Norrish, 55–69. London: CILT.Google Scholar
Preacher, Kristopher J.
2001 “Calculation for the Chi-Square Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Chi-Square Tests of Goodness of Fit and Independence” [Computer software]. Available from http://​quantpsy​.org. Date last accessed: November 5, 2014.
Probst, Julia
2009 Der Einfluss des Englischen auf das Deutsche. Zum Sprachlichen Ausdruck von Interpersonalität in Populärwissenschaftlichen Texten. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2005 “Explaining Explicitation.” In New Trends in Translation Studies. In Honour of Kinga Klaudy, ed. by Krisztina Károly, and Ágota Fóris, 29–34. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2008 “On Toury’s Laws of How Translators Translate.” In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
1984 Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter
1990 “Aspekte einer vergleichenden Typologie des Englischen und Deutschen.” In Kontrastive Linguistik, ed. by Claus Gnutzmann, 133–152. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, Kari, and Jaako Lehtonen
1997 “The Silent Finn Revisited.” In Silence. Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Adam Jaworski, 263–283. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise
1994 “Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse.” English for Specific Purposes 13: 149–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P.
2008 “Small Talk in England, Ireland, and the USA”. In Variational Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron, 99–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, Hartmut
1995 “Der Stil wissenschaftlichen Schreibens zwischen Disziplin, Kultur und Paradigma – Methodologische Anmerkungen zur interkulturellen Stilforschung.” In Stilfragen, ed. by Gerhard Stickel, 150–180. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Wong Scollon
2001 Intercultural Communication. A Discourse Approach. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
1998 “The Lexical Item.” In Contrastive Lexical Semantics, ed. by Edda Weigand, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Erich
2005a “Some Properties of Lexicogrammatical Encoding and Their Implications for Situations of Language Contact and Multilinguality.” Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 139: 54–75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b “Some Properties of Texts in Terms of ‘Information Distribution’ across Languages.” Languages in Contrast 5: 49–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Empirical Studies of Translations as a Mode of Language Contact – “Explicitness” of Lexicogrammatical Encoding as a Relevant Dimension.” In Language Contact and Contact Languages, ed. by Peter Siemund, and Noemi Kintana, 317–345. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stolze, Radigundis
2008 Übersetzungstheorien. Eine Einführung. 5th ed. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael
2001a “On Inference Theories and Code Theories: Corpus Evidence for Semantic Schemas.” Text 21: 437–465.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001b Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Swales, John M.
1990 Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Research Genres. Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, Mary
2010 Language and Gender. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Shin
2011 Deixis und Anaphorik. Referenzstrategien in Text, Satz und Wort. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teich, Elke
2003 Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teyssier, Jacques
1968 “Notes on the Syntax of the Adjective in Modern English.” Lingua 20: 225–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thiel, Gisela, and Gisela Thome
1996 “Fachlichkeit in wissenschaftsjournalistischen Texten. Dargestellt am Gebrauch von Nomina mit hypothetischer Bedeutung (Deutsch – Englisch – Französisch).” In Fachliche Textsorten. Komponenten – Relationen – Strategien, ed. by Klaus-Dieter Baumann, and Hartwig Kalverkämper, 746–773. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny
1995 Meaning in Interaction. Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff, and Puleng Thetela
1995 “The Sound of one Hand Clapping: The Management of Interaction in Written Discourse.” Text 15: 103–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tiittula, Liisa
1995 “Stile in interkulturellen Begegnungen.” In Stilfragen, ed. by Gerhard Stickel, 198–224. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1989 “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English. An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.” Language 65: 31–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 “From Less to More Situated in Language. The Unidirectionality of Semantic Change.” In Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, ed. by Silvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent, and Susan Wright, 496–517. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Pol, Nikki, and Hubert Cuyckens
2014 “Branching out. A Diachronic Prototype Approach to the Development of the English Absolute.” Paper presented at the 3rd ISLE (International Society of the Linguistics of English) , August 24 – 27, 2014. Zurich.
Van der Auwera, Johan, Ewa Schalley, and Jan Nuyts
2005 “Epistemic Possibility in a Slavonic Parallel Corpus: A Pilot Study.” In Modality in Slavonic languages: New Perspectives, ed. by Petr Karlik, and Björn Hansen, 201–217. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2007 Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy. Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, Peter R. R.
2003 “Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance.” Text 23: 259–284.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, Peter R. R., and Motoki Sano
2006 “Dialogistic Positions and Anticipated Audiences – a Framework for Stylistic Comparisons.” In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 189–214. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard
1985 “Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers. Popularisation as a Relation Between Scientific Fields and Their Publics.” In Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularisation, ed. by Terry Shinn, and Richard Whitley, 3–28. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin
1956 “Language, Mind, and Reality.” In Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by John B. Carroll, 246–270. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1986 “What’s in a Noun? (Or: How Do Nouns Differ in Meaning from Adjectives?).” Studies in Language 10: 353–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilke, Jürgen
1986 “Probleme wissenschaftlicher Informationsvermittlung durch die Massenmedien.” In Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. Aspekte der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation und des Wissenstransfers in der heutigen Zeit, ed. by Theo Bungarten, 304–318. Hamburg: Edition Akademion.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard
2008 “Well-Known and Influential Corpora.” In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Vol. 1, ed. by Anke Lüdeling, and Merja Kytö, 383–457. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery
2006 “Collocation, Semantic Prosody, and Near Synonymy. A Cross-Linguistice Perspective.” Applied Linguistics 27: 103–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yli-Jokipii, Hilkka
1994 Requests in Professional Discourse. A Cross-Cultural Study of British, American and Finnish Business Writing. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Yule, George
1996 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Pragmatics
Germanic linguistics
Discourse studies
Semantics

Translation & Interpreting Studies

Translation Studies
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2016001810 | Marc record