Cover not available
Article published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 8:1 (2015) ► pp.88–124

Word order in English and French

The position of English and French adverbial connectors of contrast

Drawing upon the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics, this paper compares the word order patterns of English and French adverbial connectors of contrast in a comparable bilingual corpus of quality newspaper editorials. The study shows that the two languages offer the same possibilities in terms of connector positioning but differ markedly in the preferred patterns that they display. In both languages, connector placement proves to be influenced by three main types of factors: language-specific syntactic, rhetorical and lexical factors. The notion of Rheme, which tends to be under-researched in the literature in comparison to that of Theme, plays a key role in the analysis.
Keywords: connectors, contrast, Systemic Functional Linguistics, English, French
Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.8.1.04dup
References (57)
Altenberg, Bengt. 1998. Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds.). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 115–143.Google Scholar
. 2006. The function of adverbial connectors in second initial position in English and Swedish. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.). Oxford: Elsevier, 11–37.Google Scholar
Becher, Viktor. 2011. When and why do translators add connectives? Target 23 (1): 26–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finnegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, Danièle Godard & Brigitte Kampers-Manhe. 2004. Adverb classification. In Handbook of French Semantics, Francis Corblin & Henriëtte de Swart (eds.). Stanford: CSLI, 133–174.Google Scholar
Caffarel, Alice. 2006. A Systemic Functional Grammar of French. From Grammar to Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Chalker, Sylvia. 1996. Collins Cobuild English Guides. 9: Linking Words. Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
Chuquet, Hélène & Michel Paillard. 1989. Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cosme, Christelle. 2007. Clause linking across languages. A corpus-based study of coordination and subordination in English, French and Dutch. PhD dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain.
Csüry, István. 2006. L’identification d’une discipline: Difficultés et perspectives. Commentaires sur les différentes approaches d’un objet pluridisciplinaire. In Des discours aux textes: Modèles et analyses, Philippe Lane (ed.). Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre, 103–124.Google Scholar
Cummings, Michael. 2009. The Theme/Rheme distinction and the method of development in written French text. In La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks, Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds.). Paris: L’Harmattan, 41–65.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2010. On the focusing function of focusing adverbs: A discussion based on Italian data. Linguistik Online 44 (4): 99–116.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kavalova. 2007. Parentheticals. An introduction. In Parentheticals, Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Angela. 1991. An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective. Word 42 (2): 119–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupont, Maïté. 2013. Contrastive relations in English and French editorials. MA dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain.
Dyvik, Helge. 1998. A translational basis for semantics. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds.). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 51–86.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1994. On Theme, Rheme and discourse goals. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, Malcolm Coulthard (ed.). London: Routledge, 229–249.Google Scholar
. 2002. The flow of information in written English text. In Relations and Functions within and around Language, Peter H. Fries, Michael Cummings, David Lockwood & William Spruiell (eds.). London: Continuum, 117–155.Google Scholar
Green, Christopher F., Elsie R. Christopher & Jacquelin Lam Kam Mei. 2000. The incidence and effect on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes 191: 99–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse. 2011. Le bon usage: Grammaire française. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra Deshors. 2014. Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9 (1): 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grieve, James. 1996. Dictionary of Contemporary French Connectors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 2006. Afterwords. In System and Corpus. Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.). London: Equinox, 293–299.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hannay, Mike & María de los Ángeles Gómez González. 2013. Thematic parentheticals in Dutch and English. In Contrastive Discourse Analysis. Functional and Corpus Perspectives, Maite Taboada, Susana Doval Suárez & Elsa González Álvarez (eds.). London: Equinox, 94–122.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 1996. Where and When: Positional and Functional Conventions for Sequences of Time and Space Adverbials in Present-day English. Acta Humaniora 4, University of Oslo, Faculty of Arts. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. The role of multiple themes in cohesion. In Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, Karin Aijmer & Anna-Brita Stenström (eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming. A New Theory of Words and Language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Sven. 1964. Adverbial Positions in English. Stockholm: Studentbok.Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair. 1996. A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Kunz, Kerstin & Erich Steiner. 2013. Towards a comparison of cohesive reference in English and German: System and text. In Contrastive Discourse Analysis. Functional and Corpus Perspectives, Maite Taboada, Susana Doval Suárez & Elsa González Álvarez (eds.). London: Equinox, 208–239.Google Scholar
Le Draoulec, Anne & Myriam Bras. 2006. Quelques candidats au statut de “connecteur temporel”. Cahiers de grammaire 301: 219–237.Google Scholar
Lefer, Marie-Aude & Svetlana Vogeleer (eds.). 2014. Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast. Special issue of Languages in Contrast 14 (1).Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. A focus on adverbial connectors: Connecting, partitioning and focusing attention in the history of English. In Connectives in Synchrony and Diachrony in European Languages, Anneli Meurmann-Solin & Ursula Lenker (eds.). Helsinki: VARIENG. <[URL]> (Last accessed on 11 July 2014).Google Scholar
Liu, Dilin. 2008. Linking adverbials. An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13 (4): 491–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morel, Mary-Annick & Laurent Danon-Boileau. 1998. Grammaire de l’intonation. L’exemple du français oral. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Osborne, John. 2008. Adverb placement in post-intermediate learner English: A contrastive study of learner corpora. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Szilvia Papp & María Belén Díez-Bedmar (eds.). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 127–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patpong, Pattama. 2006. A corpus-based study of the conjunction kɔ: in Thai: An exploration of textual resources. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.). London: Equinox, 226–247.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rivelin-Constantin, Eve. 1992. La thématisation en français et en anglais: Une étude contrastive. In Linguistique contrastive et traduction. Tome 1, Jacqueline Guillemin-Flescher (ed.). Paris: Ophrys, 157–205.Google Scholar
Rossette, Fiona. 2007. Connecteurs, enchaînements cohésifs et lisibilité en anglais: Quelques pistes de réflexion. In Les connecteurs, jalons du discours, Agnès Celle, Stéphane Gresset & Ruth Huart (eds.). Bern: Peter Lang, 11–42.Google Scholar
. 2009. Thème, conjonction et cohésion: Corrélations entre les différents composants de la métafonction textuelle en français. In La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks, Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds.). Paris: L’Harmattan, 9–42.Google Scholar
Roze Charlotte, Laurence Danlos L. & Philippe Muller. 2012. LEXICONN: A French lexicon of discourse connectives. Discours 101. <[URL]> (Last accessed on 11 July 2014).Google Scholar
Rubattel, Christian. 1982. De la syntaxe des connecteurs pragmatiques. Cahiers de linguistique française 41: 37–61.Google Scholar
Schadle, Igor, Jean-Yves Antoine & Daniel Memmi. 1999. Connectionist language models for speech understanding: The problem of word order variation. 6th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. Eurospeech’2003 51: 2035–2039. Budapest.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2012. WordSmith Tools 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John M. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and Emphasis. On Focus and Scope in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2014. Introducing Functional Grammar. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston (eds.). 2006. System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Trévise, Anne. 1986. Is it transferable, topicalization? In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, Eric Kellerman & Michael Sharwood Smith (eds.). New York: Pargamon, 186–206.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Jean Darbelnet. 1995 [1958]. Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 1992. Discourse Functions of Adverbial Placement in English. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Klumm, Matthias
2024. Peripheries and their internal structure: an empirical analysis of left- and right-peripheral sequences across written English discourse. Linguistics DOI logo
Brysbaert, Jorina & Karen Lahousse
2022. Marking Contrastive Topics in a Topic Shift Context: Contrastive Adverbs versus Emphatic Pronouns. Discours :31 DOI logo
Dupont, Maïté
2020. Placement patterns of English and French conjunctive adjuncts of contrast. Languages in Contrast 20:2 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2017. Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 286], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 99], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 2024. 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.