Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The present study joins recent endeavors within Construction Grammar to recognize constructions that are beyond clauses and sentences and function as schematic frames for the organization of discourse. Specifically, it deals with two particular instances of what is termed a , the conventionalized combination of genre and text-type: a personal experience narrative and an expository discussion of a personal opinion on an abstract topic. The paper discusses findings from various studies that characterize usage of lexical and clause-level constructions in the course of producing texts based on the two discourse patterns, and contrasts these findings with quantitative and qualitative analyses of clause combining in the same texts. The study relies on a corpus of 40 texts collected from Hebrew speaker-writers, who each produced a narrative and an expository text following a semi-structured elicitation controlling for the components of , , and . The distributional and functional findings of the study suggest that discourse patterns, like other constructions, occupy a cline of idiomacity/schematicity. In its conclusion, the study considers the tangential and intersecting points between Construction Grammar, on the one hand, and discourse analysis, on the other.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Achard, M
    (1998) Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French sentential complements. [Cognitive Linguistics Research Series 11]. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110805956
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805956 [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonopoulou, E. , & Nikiforidou, K
    (2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2594–2609. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Askehave, I. , & Swales, J.M
    (2001) Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22, 195–212. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.2.195
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.195 [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P. , & Pfänder, S
    (Eds.) (2011) Constructions. Emerging and emergent. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, M
    (1986) The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (Transl. V. McGee ) (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bar-Ilan, L. , & Berman, R.A
    (2007) Developing register differentiation: The Latinate-Germanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1515/LING.2007.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauman, R. , & Scherzer, J
    (1989) Preface and introduction. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp.6–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611810.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611810.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergs, A. , & Diewald, G
    (Eds.) (2009) Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Berkenkotter, C. , & Huckin, T.N
    (1993) Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written communication, 10(4), 475–509. doi: 10.1177/0741088393010004001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010004001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berman, R.A
    (1978) Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects, Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1997) Narrative theory and narrative development: The Labovian impact. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 235–244. doi: 10.1075/jnlh.7.29nar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.29nar [Google Scholar]
  12. (2005) Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(2), 105–124. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(04)00189‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00189-4 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2008) The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35(4), 735–771. doi: 10.1017/S0305000908008787
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908008787 [Google Scholar]
  14. Berman, R.A. , & Nir-Sagiv, B
    (2004) Linguistic indicators of inter-genre differentiation in later language development. Journal of Child Language, 31, 339–380 doi: 10.1017/S0305000904006038
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006038 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2007) Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79–120. doi: 10.1080/01638530709336894
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336894 [Google Scholar]
  16. Berman, R.A. , & Nir, B
    (2010) The language of expository discourse across adolescence. In M.A. Nippold & C.M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders (pp.99–122). New York: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Berman, R.A. , & Slobin, D.I
    (1994) Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Berman, R.A. , & Verhoeven, L
    (2002) Crosslinguistic perspectives on developing text production abilities in speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5, 1–44. doi: 10.1075/wll.5.1.02ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.1.02ber [Google Scholar]
  19. Biber, D
    (1989) A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27(1), 3–44. doi: 10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1992) The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities, 26(5-6), 331–345. doi: 10.1007/BF00136979
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136979 [Google Scholar]
  21. Biber, D. , & Conrad, S
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  22. Biber, D. , & Finegan, E
    (1989) Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language, 65(3), 487–517. doi: 10.2307/415220
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415220 [Google Scholar]
  23. Boas, H.C
    (2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in construction grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 113–144. doi: 10.1075/arcl.6.06boa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.06boa [Google Scholar]
  24. Britton, B.K
    (1994) Understanding expository text: Building mental structure to induce insights. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.641–674). NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bruner, J
    (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chandler, D
    (1997) An introduction to genre theory. Media and Communication Studies: www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/intgenre1.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Clark, M. , Ruthven, I. , & Holt, P.O.B
    (2010) Perceiving and using genre by form–an eye-tracking study. Libri, 60(3), 268–280. doi: 10.1515/libr.2010.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.2010.023 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cristofaro, S
    (2003) Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Croft, W
    (2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dasinger, L. , & Toupin, C
    (1994) The development of relative clause functions in narrative. In R.A. Berman & D.I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 457–414). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Diessel, H
    (2008) Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 465–490. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2008.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.018 [Google Scholar]
  32. Downing, A
    (1996) Register and/or genre?In I. Vázquez & A. Hornero (Eds.), Current issues in genre theory (pp.11–27). Zaragoza: Mira MIRA editores.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Du Bois, J.W
    (1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805–855. doi: 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2003) Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 43–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Duffield, C.J. , & Michaelis, L.A
    (2011) Why subject relatives prevail: Constraints versus constructional licensing. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 171–208. doi: 10.1515/LANGCOG.2011.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2011.007 [Google Scholar]
  36. Eggins, S. , & Martin, J.R
    (1997) Genres and registers of discourse. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp.230–256). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ervin-Tripp, S
    (1972) On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp.213–250). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fillmore, C.J
    (1977) Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–79). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1982) Frame Semantics. Linguistic society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Fischer, K
    (2010) Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. doi: 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  42. Fludernik, M
    (2000) Genres, text types, or discourse modes: Narrative modalities and generic categorization. Style, 34(2), 274–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fox, B.A. , & Thompson, S.A
    (1990) A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66(2), 297–316. doi: 10.2307/414888
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414888 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fried, M. , & Nikiforidou, K
    (Eds.) (2013) Advances in frame semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/bct.58
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.58 [Google Scholar]
  45. Georgakopoulou, A. , & Goutsos, D
    (2000a) Mapping the world of discourse. The narrative vs. non-narrative distinction. Semiotica, 131(1/2), 113–141 doi: 10.1515/semi.2000.131.1‑2.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2000.131.1-2.113 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2000b) Revisiting discourse boundaries. The narrative and non-narrative modes. Text, 20(1), 63–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Giora, R
    (1990) On the so-called evaluative material in informative text. Text, 4, 299–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Givón, T
    (1980) The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language, 4(3), 333–337. doi: 10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv [Google Scholar]
  49. (1985) Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6.10giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.10giv [Google Scholar]
  50. (1990) Syntax: A functional typological introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.50 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2009) The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.146 [Google Scholar]
  52. Glinert, L
    (2004) The grammar of modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Goldberg, A
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Günthner, S
    (2010) Grammatical constructions and communicative genres. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp.195–217). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226485.2.195
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.2.195 [Google Scholar]
  55. Günthner, S. , & Knoblauch, H
    (1995) Culturally patterned speaking practices. The analysis of communicative genres. Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–32. doi: 10.1075/prag.5.1.03gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.5.1.03gun [Google Scholar]
  56. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (1989) Register variation. In M.A.K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (pp.29–41). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (1994) An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Halmari, H. , & Östman, J.–O
    (2001) The soft–spoken, angelic pickax killer: The notion of discourse pattern in controversial news reporting. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 805–823. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80030‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80030-8 [Google Scholar]
  60. Hasan, R
    (1989) The structure of a text. In M.A.K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (pp.52–69). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (2010) The meaning of ‘not’ is not in ‘not’. In A. Mahboob & N.K. Knight (Eds.), Appliable linguistics (pp.267–298). A&C Black.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Herman, D
    (2008) Description, narrative, and explanation: Text-type categories and the cognitive foundations of discourse competence. Poetics Today, 29(3), 437–472. doi: 10.1215/03335372‑073
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-073 [Google Scholar]
  63. Hymes, D
    (1974) Ways of speaking. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, 1, 433–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Imo, W
    (2010) Mein Problem ist/mein Thema ist (‘My problem is/my topic is’): How syntactic patterns and genres interact. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp.141–166). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226485.1.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.1.141 [Google Scholar]
  65. Jisa, H. , & Viguié, A
    (2005) A developmental perspective on the role of ‘on’ in written and spoken expository texts in French. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 125–142. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(04)00192‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00192-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. Jisa, H. , Reilly, J. , Verhoeven, L. , Baruch, E. , & Rosado, E
    (2002) Passive voice constructions in written texts. Written Languages and Literacy, 5, 163–182 doi: 10.1075/wll.5.2.03jis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.03jis [Google Scholar]
  67. Kabatek, J. , Obrist, P. , & Vincis, V
    (2010) Clause-linkage techniques as a symptom of discourse traditions: Methodological issues and evidence from Romance languages. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp.247–275). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226485.2.247
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.2.247 [Google Scholar]
  68. Katzenberger, I
    (2005) The super-structure of written expository texts – A developmental perspective. In D. Ravid & H. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp. 327–336). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/1‑4020‑7911‑7_24
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7911-7_24 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kerz, E. , & Haas, F
    (2009) The aim is to analyze NP. In R. Corrigan , E.A. Moravcsik , H. Ouali , & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language: Distribution and historical change (pp.97–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.82.05the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.05the [Google Scholar]
  70. Kinneavy, J
    (1971) A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kuiper, K
    (2009) Formulaic genres. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230241657
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230241657 [Google Scholar]
  72. Kuiper, K. , & Haggo, D
    (1984) Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language. Language in society, 13(2), 205–234. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010381
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010381 [Google Scholar]
  73. Labov, W
    (1972) Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. (1997) Some further steps in narrative history. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 394–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. (2011) Oral narratives of personal experience. In P.C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Lambrecht, K
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  77. Leino, J. , & Östman, J.-O
    (2005) Constructions and variability. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions. Back to the roots (pp. 191–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.4.12lei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.12lei [Google Scholar]
  78. Lewin, B.A. , Fine, J. , & Young, L
    (2001) Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Longacre, R.E
    (1996) The grammar of discourse, 2nd edition. [Topics in Language and Linguistics]. New York: Plenum. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4899‑0162‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0162-0 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2004) Holistic textlinguistics. In C.L. Moder & A. Martinovic-Zic (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures (pp.13–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.68.02lon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.68.02lon [Google Scholar]
  81. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Mannheim, B
    (1999) Iconicity.Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9, 107–110. doi: 10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1‑2.107
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.107 [Google Scholar]
  83. Malvern, D.D. , Richards, B.J. , Chipere, N. , & Durán, P
    (2004) Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230511804
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511804 [Google Scholar]
  84. Mandler, J.M. , & Johnson, N
    (1977) Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(77)90006‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90006-8 [Google Scholar]
  85. Martin, J.R
    (2012) Grammar meets genre: Reflections on the ‘Sydney School’. Arts: The Journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 22, 48–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Maschler, Y
    (1993) Iconicity in discourse: The story of Echo. Poetics today, 14(4), 653–689. doi: 10.2307/3301099
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3301099 [Google Scholar]
  87. Miller, P.J. , Hengst, J. , Alexander, K. , & Sperry, L.L
    (2000) Versions of personal storytelling/versions of experience. In K.S. Rosengren , C.N. Johnson , & P.L. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children (pp. 212–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511571381.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571381.009 [Google Scholar]
  88. Moessner, L
    (2001) Genre, text type, style, register: A terminological maze?European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 131–138. doi: 10.1076/ejes.
    https://doi.org/10.1076/ejes. [Google Scholar]
  89. Mosenthal, P.B
    (1985) Defining the expository discourse continuum. Poetics, 14, 387–414. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(85)90035‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(85)90035-X [Google Scholar]
  90. Nicolopoulou, A
    (1997) Children and narratives: Toward an interpretive and sociocultural approach. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), Narrative development: Six approaches (pp.179–216). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nikiforidou, K
    (2009) Constructional analysis. In F. Brisard , J.-O. Östman , & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5] (pp. 16–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hoph.5.01nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.01nik [Google Scholar]
  92. Nir, B
    (2008)  Clause packages as constructions in developing narrative discourse . PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
  93. (2014) Clause combining across grammars: A contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 construal of discourse organization. Constructions and Frames, 6(2), 232–265. doi: 10.1075/cf.6.2.05nir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.05nir [Google Scholar]
  94. Nir, B. , & Berman, R.A
    (2010) Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 744–765. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  95. Nir, B. , & Katzenberger, I
    . (2016). Categories of referential content in expository discussions of conflict. In J. Perera , M. Aparici , E. Rosado , & N. Salas (Eds.) Written and spoken language development across the lifespan: Essays in honour of Liliana Tolchinsky (pp.271–285). Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Östman, J.-O
    (1999) Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In W. Bublitz , U. Lenk , & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 77–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.63.08ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.08ost [Google Scholar]
  97. (2004) The postcard as media. Text, 24(3), 423–442.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Östman, J-O
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  99. Paltridge, B
    (1995) Analyzing genre: A relational perspective. System, 23(4), 503–511. doi: 10.1016/0346‑251X(95)00036‑J
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00036-J [Google Scholar]
  100. (1997) Genre, frames and writing in research setting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.45 [Google Scholar]
  101. Ragnarsdóttir, H. , Cahana-Amitay, D. , van Hell, J. , Rosado, E. , & Viguié, A
    (2002) Verbal structure and content in written discourse: narrative and expository texts. Written Languages and Literacy, 5, 95–124. doi: 10.1075/wll.5.1.05rag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.1.05rag [Google Scholar]
  102. Ravid, D
    (2004) Emergence of linguistic complexity in written expository texts: Evidence from later language acquisition. In D. Ravid & H.B.Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp.337–355). Boston: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. (2006) Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun Scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 791–821. doi: 10.1017/S0305000906007586
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007586 [Google Scholar]
  104. Ravid, D. , & Berman, R.A
    (2009) Developing linguistic register across text types: The case of modern Hebrew. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1), 108–145. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.1.04rav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.04rav [Google Scholar]
  105. (2010) Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3–26. doi: 10.1177/0142723709350531
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723709350531 [Google Scholar]
  106. Ravid, D. , van Hell, J. , Rosado, E. , & Zamora, A
    (2002) Subject NP patterning in the development of written and spoken text production. Written Language and Literacy, 5, 68–95. doi: 10.1075/wll.5.1.04rav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.1.04rav [Google Scholar]
  107. Reilly, J.S. , Jisa, H. , Baruch, E. , & Berman, R.A
    (2002) Propositional attitudes: Development of modal expression. Written Language and Literacy, 5(2), 183–218. doi: 10.1075/wll.5.2.04rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.04rei [Google Scholar]
  108. Reilly, J.S. , Zamora, A. , & McGivern, R.F
    (2005) Acquiring perspective in English: Use of pronouns, modals, and passives in two genres. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 185–208. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(04)00191‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00191-2 [Google Scholar]
  109. Renkema, J
    (2004) Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.124 [Google Scholar]
  110. Rosado, E. , Salas, N. , Aparici, M. , & Tolchinsky, L
    (2014) Production and judgment of linguistic devices for attaining a detached stance in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 36–53. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  111. Ross, H
    (2009) The art of fusion. In P. Kiparsky , K. Hanson , & S. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky (pp.677–696). The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Schleppegrell, M.J
    (2004) The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Smith, C.S
    (2003) Modes of discourse: The local structure of texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615108
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615108 [Google Scholar]
  114. Steen, G
    (1999) Genres of discourse and the definition of literature. Discourse Processes, 28, 109–120. doi: 10.1080/01638539909545075
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545075 [Google Scholar]
  115. Swales, J
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tolchinsky, L. , Johansson, V. , & Zamora, A
    (2002) Text openings and closings in writing and speech: Autonomy and differentiation. Written Language & Literacy, 5(2), 219–252. doi: 10.1075/wll.5.2.05tol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.05tol [Google Scholar]
  117. Tolchinsky, L. , & Rosado, E
    (2005) The effect of literacy, text type, and modality on the use of grammatical means for agency alternation in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(2), 209–237. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(04)00195‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00195-X [Google Scholar]
  118. Trosborg, A
    (1997) Text typology: Register, genre and text type. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Text typology and translation (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.26.03tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.26.03tro [Google Scholar]
  119. van Dijk, T.A
    (1980) Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. (1985) Structures of news in the press. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication (pp.69–93). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110852141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852141 [Google Scholar]
  121. (2013) News as discourse. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Van Valin, R.D. , & LaPolla, R
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  123. Verhagen, A
    (2001) Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In T. Sanders , J. Schilperoord , & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation. Linguistic and psychological aspects (pp. 337–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.8.18ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.18ver [Google Scholar]
  124. Verhoeven, L. , Aparici, M. , Cahana-Amitay, D. , Hell, J.V. , Kriz, S. , & Viguié-Simon, A
    (2002) Clause packaging in writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis. Written Language & Literacy, 5(2), 135–161. doi: 10.1075/wll.5.2.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.02ver [Google Scholar]
  125. Virtanen, T
    (2003). Text structure. In J. Verschueren , J.-O. Östman , J. Blommaert , & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Online. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hop.m
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m [Google Scholar]
  126. (2010) Variation across texts and discourses: Theoretical and methodological perspectives on text type and genre. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp.53–84). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226485.1.53
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.1.53 [Google Scholar]
  127. Virtanen, T. , & Halmari, H
    (2005) Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.130.03vir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.03vir [Google Scholar]
  128. Virtanen, T. , & Warvik, B
    (1987) Observations sur les types de texte. Communications, 8, 91–114.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error