Towards multiple hyperTheme: Theme beyond the clause

References

Berry, Margaret. 1996. What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. In Berry Margaret, Butler Christopher, Fawcett Robin & Huang Guowen (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations, 1–64. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian & Gorge Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Search in Google Scholar

Clinton, Bill. 2004. My life. New York: Knopf Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar

Crompton, Peter. 2004. Theme in discourse: ‘Thematic progression’ and ‘method of development’ re-evaluated. Functions of Language 11. 213–249.10.1075/fol.11.2.04croSearch in Google Scholar

Daneš, František. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš František (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective, 106–128. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111676524.106Search in Google Scholar

Davis, Allen & Harold Woodman. 2003. Why historians disagree. In Yang Limin (ed.), Contemporary college English, 68–71. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Downing, Angela. 1991. An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective. Word 42(2). 119–143.10.1080/00437956.1991.11435835Search in Google Scholar

Dunayer, Joan. 2005. Here’s to your health. In Langan John (ed.), College writing skills with readings, 679–681. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Fawcett, Robin. 2007. The many types of ‘Theme’ in English: Their semantic systems and their functional syntax. Presented at: Research Papers in the Humanities, 1–105.Search in Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan. 1964. On defining theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1. 267–280.Search in Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597817Search in Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan. 1995. A contribution on a panel discussion on Rheme. In Ghadessey Mohsen (ed.), Thematic development in English texts, 213–222. London: Pinter.Search in Google Scholar

Fries, Peter. 1981. On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum 6. 1–38.Search in Google Scholar

Fries, Peter. 1995. Themes, methods of development, and texts. In Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter Fries (eds.), On subject and Theme: A discourse functional perspective, 317–359. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.118.10friSearch in Google Scholar

Fries, Peter. 2009. The textual metafunction as a site for a discussion of the goals of linguistics and techniques of linguistic analysis. In Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Text type and texture, 8–44. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Gómez-González, María Ángeles. 2001. The Theme-topic interface: Evidence from English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.71Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244.10.1017/S0022226700016613Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael. 1994 [1985]. An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael. 2002 [1981–1982]. Text semantics and clause grammar: How is a text like a clause? Separately published under the titles (i) “Text semantics and clause grammar: Some patterns of reliazation”. In James E. Copland & Philip W. Davies ((eds.)), 1981. The seventh LACUS forum. LACUS. 31–59; and (ii) “How is a text like a clause”, in Sture Allen (ed.), 1982. Text processing: Text analysis and generation, text typology and attrition (Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 51). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. 209–247. Reprinted in On grammar (Volume 1 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday), 219–260. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203783771Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig. 1952. Discourse analysis. Language 28. 1–30.10.2307/409987Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalization in Halliday’s functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24. 137–174.10.1017/S0022226700011592Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1991. Further remarks on Halliday’s functional grammar: A reply to Matthiessen and Martin. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5. 75–130.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James. 1992a. English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.59Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James. 1992b. Theme, method of development and existentiality: The price of reply. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6. 147–184.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James. 1995a. More than what the message is about: English Theme. In Ghadessy Mohsen (ed.), Thematic development in English texts, 223–258. London and New York: Pinter.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James. 1995b. Text and clause: Fractal resonance. Text 15. 5–42.10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.5Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James & David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian. 1992. Interpreting the textual metafunction. In Davies Martin & Ravelli Louise (eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent theory and practice, 37–81. London: Pinter.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian & James Martin. 1991. A response to Huddleston’s review of Halliday’s introduction to Functional Grammar. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5. 5–74.Search in Google Scholar

McClintock, Ann. 2005. Propaganda techniques in today’s advertising. In Langan John (ed.), College writing skills with readings, 663–667. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Rose, David. 2006. Reading genre: A new wave of analysis. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 2(2). 185–204.10.1558/lhs.v2i2.185Search in Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. 2005. Three passions. In Langan John (ed.), College writing skills with readings, 588. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, Deems. 2005. The monster. In Langan John (ed.), College writing skills with readings 650–653. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoff. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22. 58–78.10.1093/applin/22.1.58Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoff & Jianglin Zhou. 2000. Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In Hunston Susan & Thompson Geoff (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 121–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0007Search in Google Scholar

Winter, Eugene. 1968. Some aspects of cohesion. In Huddleston Rodney, Hudson Richard, Winter Eugene & Alick Henrici (eds.), Sentence and clause in scientific English. London: University College London Department of General Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Zeng, Lisha. 1994. Yingyu xianxing duanluo jiegou moushi yanjiu [Studies in the direct linear pattern of the English Paragraph]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 1. 20–26.Search in Google Scholar