1887
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to apply the (EC-Model hereafter; see Schmid 20142015201620172018Schmid & Mantlik 2015) of language knowledge to genre, with the aim of showing how a unified theory of the relation between usage and linguistic knowledge and convention can shed light on the way genre knowledge becomes entrenched in the individual and shared conventional behavior in communities. The EC-Model is a usage-based and emergentist model of language knowledge and convention rooted in cognitive linguistics and usage-based approaches. It sees knowledge as emerging from language usage, and explains the processes underlying the intertwining of social practice and cognition. However, so far, no suggestion has been advanced on how to extend the model to account for entrenchment and conventionalization at the supra-sentential level. In the area of genre studies various attempts have been made by scholars to develop or apply theories belonging to different scientific domains to understand the nature of genre. However, so far, there has been no research that applies a unified model in the attempt to link entrenchment of genres in individuals to their conventionalization at the societal level. I largely focus on the long tradition of rhetorical studies of genre, one among the different approaches that, over time, have regarded genre as their main topic of investigation. I concentrate on this tradition as it opens up the entire field of enquiry that defines contemporary genre research. To these I add by showing how the explanations provided so far can be cognitively clarified and unified under the EC-Model. The paper, then, argues that the EC-Model is theoretically apt to address questions about the nature of genre, capturing in an elegant way the interplay between cognition and social interaction in genre emergence, evolution, stabilization and variation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19003.ver
2020-01-10
2020-04-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andrews, James R.
    (ed.) 2007Rhetoric, religion and the roots of identity in British colonial America. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou
    2009 Deconstructing verbal humour with Construction Grammar. InGeert Brône & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, gains and gaps, 289–314. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2011 Construction Grammar and conventional discourse. Journal of Pragmatics43(10). 2594–2609. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin, John L.
    1975 [1962]How to do things with words. Harvard: MIT Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1986 The problem of speech genre. InCaryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer
    (eds.) 2000Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bercovitch, Sacvan
    1975The Puritan origin of the American self. Yale: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berkenkotter, Carol & Thomas N. Huckin
    1995Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bitzer, Lloyd F.
    1968 The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric1. 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
    2012Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boggel, Sandra
    2009Metadiscourse in Middle English and Early Modern English religious texts. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bremer, Francis J.
    2003John Winthrop. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  14. Burke, Kenneth
    1966Language as a symbolic action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1969aA grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1969bA rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bybee, Joan L.
    2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition, Language82(4). 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bybee, Joan L. & Paul J. Hopper
    (eds.) 2001Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chang, Yu-Chun
    2016 The entrenchment and conventionalization of linguistic knowledge: A neurolinguistics perspective. PhD dissertation, LMU Munich.
  21. Clark, Herbert H.
    1998 Communal lexicon. InKirsten Malmkjær & John Williams (eds.), Context in language learning and language understanding, 63–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1999 On the origins of conversation. Verbum21(2). 147–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cowley, Stephen J.
    2017 Entrenchment: A view from radical embodied cognitive science. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 409–431. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑019
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-019 [Google Scholar]
  24. Croft, William
    2000Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2009 Toward a social cognitive linguistics. InVyvyan Evans & Stephanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 395–420. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.25cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.25cro [Google Scholar]
  26. Devitt, Amy
    2009 Re-fusing form in genre study. InJanet Giltrow & Dieter Stein (eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre, 27–47. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.188.02dev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.02dev [Google Scholar]
  27. Dijk, Teun van
    2006 Introduction: Discourse, interaction and cognition. Discourse Studies8(1). 5–7. 10.1177/1461445606059544
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059544 [Google Scholar]
  28. Djik, Teun van
    2014Discourse and knowledge: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fischer, Kerstin
    2010 Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames2(2). 185–207. 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  30. 2015 Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby-talk register. Construction and Frames7(2). 258–288. 10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
  31. 2016Designing speech for a recipient. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.270
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.270 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fishelov, David
    1993Metaphors of genre: The role of analogies in genre theory. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1999 The birth of a genre. European Journal of English Studies3(1). 51–63. 10.1080/13825579908574429
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13825579908574429 [Google Scholar]
  34. Fisher, Walter A.
    1970 A motive view of communication. The Quarterly Journal of Speech56(2). 131–139. 10.1080/00335637009382994
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637009382994 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fotion, Nick
    1971 Master speech acts. Philosophical Quarterly21(4). 232–243. 10.2307/2218128
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2218128 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1979 Speech activity and language use. Philosophia8(4). 615–638. 10.1007/BF02379053
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379053 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2003 From speech acts to speech activity. InBarry Smith (ed.), John Searle, 34–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613999.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613999.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Freadman, Anne
    1994 Anyone for tennis?InAviva Freedman & Peter Medway (eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric, 43–66. London: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2002 Uptake. InRichard Coe, Lorelei Lingard & Tatiana Teslenko (eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change, 39–53. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2012 The traps and trappings of genre theory. Applied Linguistics33(5). 544–563. 10.1093/applin/ams050
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams050 [Google Scholar]
  41. Geeraerts, Dirk
    2017 Entrenchment as onomasiological salience. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 153–174. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-008 [Google Scholar]
  42. Giltrow, Janet
    2002 Meta-genre. InRichard Coe, Lorelei Lingard & Tatiana Teslenko (eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change, 187–205. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Giltrow, Janet & Dieter Stein
    (eds.) 2009Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.188
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188 [Google Scholar]
  44. Green, Ian
    2000Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198208600.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198208600.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hall Jamieson, Kathleen
    1973 Generic constraints and the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric6(3). 162–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Harder, Peter
    2010Meaning in mind and society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216059
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216059 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2015 Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-based construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik63(3). 273–294. 10.1515/zaa‑2015‑0023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0023 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hoffmann, Thomas & Alexander Bergs
    2018 A construction grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes18 https://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/1032 (5 November 2018). 10.4000/cognitextes.1032
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1032 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hopper, Paul J.
    1987 Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society13. 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  50. Iza Erviti, Aneider
    2015 Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. International Journal of English Studies15(1). 71–96. 10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jost, Ethan & Morten H. Christiansen
    2017 Statistical learning as a domain-general mechanism of entrenchment. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 227–244. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-011 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kerswill, Paul & Ann Williams
    2002 “Salience” as an explanatory factor in linguistic change: Evidence from dialect levelling in urban England. InMari C. Jones & Edith Esch (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, 81–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892598.81
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892598.81 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kohnen, Thomas
    2010 Religious discourse. InAndreas Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical Pragmatics, 523–547. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Labov, William
    1966The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2000 A dynamic usage-based model. InMichael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2001 Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12(2). 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2008Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lassen, Inger
    2016 Making sense of a generic label: A study of genre (re)cognition among novice genre analysts. InNinke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 395–426. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewis, David
    1969Convention. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    2015 Partnership between grammatical constructions and interactional frames: The stand-alone noun-modifying construction in invocatory discourse. Constructions and Frames7(2). 289–314. 10.1075/cf.7.2.05mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.05mat [Google Scholar]
  62. Michaelis, Laura & Hanbing Feng
    2015 What is this, sarcastic syntax?Constructions and Frames7(2). 148–180. 10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic [Google Scholar]
  63. Michaelis, Laura & Knud Lambrecht
    1996 Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language72(2). 215–247. 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  64. Miller, Carolyn
    1984 Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech70(2). 151–167. 10.1080/00335638409383686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2015 Genre change and evolution. InNatasha Artemeva & Aviva Freedman (eds.), Genre studies around the globe: Beyond the three traditions, 154–185. Edmonton, AB: Inkshed Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 2016 Genre innovation: Evolution, emergence or something else?The Journal of Media Innovations3(2). 4–19. 10.5617/jmi.v3i2.2432
    https://doi.org/10.5617/jmi.v3i2.2432 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2017 Where do genres come from?InCarolyn Miller & Ashley R. Kelly (eds.), Emerging genres in new media environments, 1–34. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑40295‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40295-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  68. Miller, Carolyn & Dawn Shepherd
    2004 Blogging as social action. InLaura Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff & Jessica Reymann (eds.), Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community and the culture of the weblogs. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/172818/Miller_Blogging%20as%20Social%20Action.pdf (7 September 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 2009 Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere. InJanet Giltrow & Dieter Stein (eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre, 263–290. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.188.11mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.11mil [Google Scholar]
  70. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    2009 Constructional analysis. InFrank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics, 16–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5.01nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.01nik [Google Scholar]
  71. 2010 Viewpoint and construction grammar: The case of past + now. Language and Literature19(3). 265–284. 10.1177/0963947010370253
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010370253 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2015 Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations: Empathetic narration as a genre. Constructions and Frames7(2). 181–217. 10.1075/cf.7.2.02nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.02nik [Google Scholar]
  73. 2016 ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. InNinke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 331–359. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Nir, Bracha
    2015 Frames for clause combining: Schematicity and formulaicity in discourse patterns. Constructions and Frames7(2). 348–379. 10.1075/cf.7.2.07nir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.07nir [Google Scholar]
  75. Østergaard, Svend & Peer F. Bundgaard
    2014 The double feedback loop and the parameter theory of text genres. InJan Engberg, Carmen Daniela Maier & Ole Togeby (eds.), Reflections upon genre: Encounters between literature, knowledge, and emerging communicative conventions, 17–43. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2015 The emergence and nature of genres – a social-dynamic account. Cognitive Semiotics8(2). 97–127. 10.1515/cogsem‑2015‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2015-0007 [Google Scholar]
  77. Östman, Jan-Ola
    2005 Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 121–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  78. Paltridge, Brian
    1995 Working with genre: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics24(4). 393–406. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00058‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00058-M [Google Scholar]
  79. Reid, Ronald F.
    2007 Puritan rhetoric and America’s civil religion: A study of three special occasion sermons. InJames Andrews (ed.), Rhetoric, religion and the roots of identity in British colonial America, 65–120. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Rütten, Tanja
    2011How to do things with texts: Patterns of instruction in religious discourse 1350–1700. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 2012 Forms of early mass communication: The religious domain. InTerttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 295–303. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Sbisà, Marina
    1989Linguaggio, ragione, interazione: Per una teoria pragmatica degli atti linguistici. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 2002 Cognition and narrativity in speech act sequences. InAnita Fetzer & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction, 71–97. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi [Google Scholar]
  84. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2014 Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. InThomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns, 239–293. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 2015 A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association3. 1–27. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  86. 2016 Why cognitive linguistic must embrace the pragmatic and social dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics27(4). 543–557. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0048 [Google Scholar]
  87. 2017 A framework for understanding entrenchment and its psychological foundations. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 9–36. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
  88. 2018 Ein integratives soziokognitives Modell des dynamischen Lexikons. InStefan Engelberg, Henning Lobin, Kathryn Steyer & Sascha Wolfer (eds.), Wortschätze: Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität, 215–231. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110579963‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110579963-012 [Google Scholar]
  89. Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Annette Mantlik
    2015 Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia133(4). 583–623. 10.1515/ang‑2015‑0056
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2015-0056 [Google Scholar]
  90. Searle, John R.
    1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society5(1). 1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  91. 1995The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Steen, Gerard
    2011 Genre between the humanities and the sciences. InMarcus Callies, Wolfram R. Keller & Astrid Lohöfer (eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences, 24–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.30.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.03ste [Google Scholar]
  93. Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen
    (eds.) 2016Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 331–359. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Swales, John
    1990Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 2004Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  96. 2009 Worlds of genre – Metaphors of genre. InCharles Bazerman, Adair Bonini & Débora Figueiredo (eds.), Genre in a changing world, 3–16. Lafayette: Parlor Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Tomasello, Michael
    2008Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  98. Vergaro, Carla
    2005“Dear Sirs…con la presente ci pregiamo di…”. Il genere business lettere in italiano e in inglese. Roma: Aracne.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 2008 On the pragmatics of concessive constructions in Italian and English business letter discourse. Multilingua27(3). 255–283. 10.1515/MULTI.2008.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2008.013 [Google Scholar]
  100. 2017a Come fare le cose con i testi: A Modell of Christian Charity di John Winthrop. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria25(1). 99–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 2017b Logica illocutoria e azione in A Modell of Christian Charity di John Winthrop. InMirella Vallone (ed.), Faith in literature. Religione, cultura e identità negli Stati Uniti d’America, 19–37. Perugia: Morlacchi UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Wells, Susan
    2014 Genres as species and spaces. Philosophy and Rhetoric47(2). 113–136. 10.5325/philrhet.47.2.0113
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.47.2.0113 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wenger, Etienne
    1999Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Zwaan, Rolf A.
    1994 Effects of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology20(4). 920–933.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19003.ver
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19003.ver
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conventionalization , emergence , entrenchment , genre , social action and usage
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