Introduction: communicative dynamism

References

• Ammann, Hermann. 1911. “Die Stellungstypen des lateinischen attributiven Adjectivums und ihre Bedeutung für die Psychologie der Wortstellung auf Grund von Ciceros Briefen an Atticus untersucht.” Indogermanische Forschungen 29: 1–122. doi:10.1515/9783110242690.1.
   Google Scholar
• Ammann, Hermann. 1928. Die menschliche Rede. Sprachphilosophische Untersuchungen. Teil 2: Der Satz. Lahr im Schwarzwald: Moritz Schauenburg. [Reprint 1962, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.]
   Google Scholar
• Brazil, David. 1987. “Intonation and the Grammar of Speech.” In Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, edited by Ross Steele and Terry Threadgold, 145–159. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Brazil, David. 1995. A Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.
   Google Scholar
• Chovanec, Jan. 2014. Chapters from the History of Czech Functional Linguistics. Brno: Mazarykova Univerzita.
   Google Scholar
• Daneš, František. 1964. “Sentence Intonation from a Functional Point of View.” Word 16: 34–54. doi:10.1080/00437956.1960.11659719.
   Google Scholar
• Daneš, František. 1968. “Some Thoughts on the Semantic Structure of the Sentence.” Lingua 21: 55–69. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(68)90038-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneš, František. 1987. “On Prague School Functionalism in Linguistics.” In Functionalism in Linguistics, edited by René Dirven and Vilém Fried, 3–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin. 1987. “M.A.K. Halliday’s Functional Grammar and the Prague School.” In Functionalism in Linguistics, edited by René Dirven and Vilém Fried, 39–79. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin. 2004. “The Interaction of Quantification and Identification in English Determiners.” In Language, Culture and Mind, edited by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer, 507–533. Stanford: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin, and Brian Joseph. 2000. “Obituary Jan Firbas 1921-2000.” Functions of Language 7 (2): 273–277. doi:10.1075/fol.7.2.06dav.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin, and Lobke Ghesquière. 2016. “Content-purport, Content-substance and Structure: Focusing Mere and Merely.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48 (1): 85–109. doi:10.1080/03740463.2016.1145930.
   Google Scholar
• Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudoclefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Etzensperger, Jürg. 2018. Die Wortstellung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache als Forschungsobjekt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Firbas, Jan. 1964. “On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis.” Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280.
   Google Scholar
• Firbas, Jan. 1966. “Non-Thematic Subjects in Contemporary English.” Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2: 239–256.
   Google Scholar
• Firbas, Jan. 1968. “On the Prosodic Feature of the Modern English Finite Verb as Means of Functional Sentence Perspective. More Thoughts on Transition Proper.” Brno Studies in English 7: 11–48.
   Google Scholar
• Firbas, Jan. 1992a. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Firbas, Jan. 1992b. “Functional Sentence Perspective.” In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, edited by Martin Davies and Louise Ravelli, 167–188. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Firbas, Jan. 1994. “Round Table on Functional Linguistics, 1 April 1993, University of Vienna: Prof.” Jan Firbas Vienna English Working Papers 3 (1): 4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Fries, Peter. 1981. “On the Status of Theme in English: Arguments from Discourse.” Forum Linguisticum 6: 1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Gentens, Caroline. 2016. “The Discursive Status of Extraposed Object Clauses.” Journal of Pragmatics 96: 15–31. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleason, Henry Allan. 1966. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English 2.” Journal of Linguistics 3 (2): 199–244. doi:10.1017/S0022226700016613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. “Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English.” Foundations of Language 6 (3): 322–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1974. “The Place of ‘Functional Sentence Perspective’ in the System of Linguistic Description.” In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, edited by František Daneš, 43–53. Prague: Academia and The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1976. “English System Networks.” In Halliday: System and Function in Language. Selected Papers, edited by Gunther R. Kress, 101–135. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st ed. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K., and Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hjelmslev, Louis. [1943] 1961. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (Revised English Edition of Original Danish Version, 1943). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2005. “It-Extraposition in English: A Functional View.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10 (2): 119–159. doi:10.1075/ijcl.10.2.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, Gunther. 1976. Halliday: System and Function in Language. Selected Papers, edited by Gunther R. Kress. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, William. 1972. “Rules for Ritual Insults.” In Studies in Social Interaction, edited by David Sudnow, 120–170. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics 39: 463–516. doi:10.1515/ling.2001.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, James. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mathesius, Vilém. 1929a. “La structure phonologique du tchèque moderne.” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1: 67–84.
   Google Scholar
• Mathesius, Vilém. 1929b. “Funkční Lingvistika.” In Sborník přednášek pronesených na Prvém sjezdu československých profesorů filosofie, filologie a historie v Praze 3.-7. dubna 1929, 118–130.
   Google Scholar
• Mathesius, Vilém. 1929c. “Zur Satzperspektive im modernen Englisch.” Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen 155: 202–210.
   Google Scholar
• Mathesius, Vilém. 1936. “On some Problems of the Systematic Analysis of Grammar.” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 95–107.
   Google Scholar
• Mathesius, Vilém. 1964. “On Linguistic Characterology with Illustrations from Modern English.” In A Prague School Reader in Linguistics, edited by Josef Vachek, 59–67. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Matthiessen, Christian. 1992. “Interpreting the Textual Metafunction.” In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, edited by Martin Davies and Louise Ravelli, 37–81. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• O’Grady, Gerard. 2010. A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Increments. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• O’Grady, Gerard, and Tom Bartlett. 2019. “Linearity and Tone in the Unfolding of Information.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 51 (2): 192–221.
   Google Scholar
• Patten, Amanda. 2012. The English It-Cleft: A Constructional Account and A Diachronic Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, Ellen. 1992. “The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness and Information Status.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fundraising Text, edited by Sandra Thompson and William Mann, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica 27: 53–94.
   Google Scholar
• Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. “Clausal Equation (A Note on the Connectivity Problem).” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (1): 157–214. doi:10.1023/A:1021843427276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skalička, Vladimír. 1948. “The Need for a Linguistics of Parole.” Receuil Linguistique de Bratislava 1: 21–38.
   Google Scholar
• Ure, Jean. n. d.. “The Contrastive Analysis of Registers.” Linguistics Department, University of Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Vachek, Josef. 1966. The Linguistic School of Prague. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Praet, Wout, and Gerard O’Grady. 2018. “The Prosody of Specification: Discourse-Intonational Cues to Setting Up a Variable.” Journal of Pragmatics 135: 87–100. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1869. “Ideen zu einer vergleichenden Syntax. Wort und Satzstellung.” Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 6: 376–384.
   Google Scholar
• von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. “Information Structure and the Partition of the Sentence.” In Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, edited by Eva Hajičová, Petr Sgall, Jiří Hana, and Tomáš Hoskovec, 275–305. Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, Gregory, and Betty Birner. 1995. “Definiteness and the English Existential.” Language 71: 722–742. doi:10.2307/415742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar