Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 20:1 (2020) ► pp.84106
Ambrazas, V.
(ed) 1997Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.Google Scholar
Barlow, M.
2008ParaConc and Parallel Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Houston: Athelstan Publications.Google Scholar
Becher, V.
2010Differences in the Use of Deictic Expressions in English and German texts. Linguistics 48(6): 1309–1342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation. A Corpus-based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD thesis, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
(eds) 1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S.
1986Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Tanslation. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
1999Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Is There a Deictic Frame of Reference? In Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives, P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock and B. Szmrecsanyi (eds), 687–692. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1971Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
2013Demonstratives on the Move: What Translational Shifts Tell us about Demonstrative Determiners and Definite Articles in Spanish and Dutch. Linguistics 51(3): 517–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H.
2004Spatial Linking in English and Norwegian. In Translation and Corpora, K. Aijmer and H. Hasselgård (eds), 163–188. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
2006Not Now – on Non-correspondence between the Cognate Adverbs now and . Pragmatic Markers in Contrast 21: 93–114.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
1996Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: a Taxonomy of Universal Uses. In Studies in Anaphora, B. Fox (ed), 205–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Judžentytė, G.
2017Spatial Deixis in Lithuanian: Demonstrative Pronouns. In Language: Meaning and Form 8. Grammatical and Lexical Variance in Language System, A. Kalnača and I. Lokmane (eds), 173–193. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.Google Scholar
Károly, K.
2017Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, K.
2009Explicitation. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds), 104–108. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klaudy, K. and Károly, K.
2005Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krein-Kühle, M.
2002Cohesion and Coherence in Technical Translation: The Case of Demonstrative Reference. In Linguistics and Translation Studies, L. Van Vaerenbergh (ed), 41–53. Antwerpen: Hogeschool Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Kryk, B.
1987On Deixis in English and Polish: the Role of Demonstrative Pronouns. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004Deixis. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M.
2013 This and That in the Language of Film. Dubbing: a Corpus-Based Analysis. Meta 58(1): 103–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015The Translation of Conversation and Film Dubbing as a Discovery Procedure: Evidence from Demonstratives. In Language across Languages – New Perspectives on Translation, E. Miola and P. Ramat (eds), 143–172. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pym, A.
2010Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Remys, E.
2001Review of Modern Lithuanian Grammar. Chicago: Lithuanian Research Studies Center.Google Scholar
Ribera, C. J. and Cuenca, M. J.
2013Use and Translation of Demonstratives in Fiction: a Contrastive Approach (English-Catalan). Catalan Review: International Journal of Catalan Culture 271: 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosinas, A.
1996Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai: funkcijos ir semantika. [Pronouns in Standard Lithuanian: Functions and Semantics]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir Enciklopediju̧ Leidykla.Google Scholar
2009Baltų kalbų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra: sinchronija ir diachronija. [Semantic and Morphological Structure of Pronouns in the Baltic Languages: Synchrony and Diachrony]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Stirling, L. and Huddleston, R.
2002Deixis and Anaphora. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, R. Huddleston and G. K. Pullum (eds), 1449–1564. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valeckienė, A.
1998Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Functional Grammar of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Vanderbauwhede, G., Desmet, P. and Lauwers, P.
2011The Shifting of the Demonstrative Determiner in French and Dutch in Parallel Corpora: From Translation Mechanisms to Structural Differences. Meta 56(2): 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J.
1958/2000A Methodology for Translation. In The Translation Studies Reader, L. Venuti (ed), 84–93. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vondřička, P.
2016InterText Editor v1.5 Comprehensive Guide. Institute of the Czech National Corpus, Charles University.Google Scholar