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



The present article investigates a set of discourse connectors in the academic lecture genre from the viewpoint of the inseparable pair of pragmatics and cognition. Making use of the corpus for data retrieval, a selection of discourse constructions encoding comparative contrastive meanings are analysed and their distinctive features are critically described and explained. The aim is to show how each particular genre promotes the use of certain constructions. The database reveals that, among all the subgroups of complementary contrastive constructions, some seem incompatible with the academic lecture contexts by virtue of the particular characteristics of this specific genre.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou
    2011 Construction Grammar and conventional discourse. Journal of Pragmatics43(10). 2594–2609. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baicchi, Annalisa
    2015Construction learning as a complex adaptive system: Psycholinguistic evidence from L2 learners of English. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑18269‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18269-8 [Google Scholar]
  3. de Beaugrande, Robert & Wolfgang Dressler
    1981Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. 10.4324/9781315835839
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835839 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergs, Alexander
    2008 Can we take Construction Grammar beyond sneezing napkins off tables?InKlaus Stierstorfer (ed.), Proceedings of the Anglistentag Münster 2007, 269–276. Trier: WVT.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakemore, Diane
    2002Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  6. Butler, Christopher Stuard & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
    2014Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dirven, René & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza
    2010 Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. InElżbieta Tabakowska, Michal Choiński & Łukasz Wiraszka (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action: From theory to application and back, 13–70. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellis, Nick
    2013 Second language acquisition. InGraeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann (eds.), Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 365–378. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen-Freeman
    2009Language as a complex adaptive system. Chichester: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Feyaerts, Kurt
    2006 Towards a dynamic account of phraseological meaning: Creative variation in headlines and conversational humour. International Journal of English Studies6(1). 57–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary C. O’Connor
    1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone. Language64(3). 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraser, Bruce
    1999 What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics31(7). 931–952. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006 Towards a theory of discourse. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fried, Mirjam
    2009 Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames1(2). 261–290. 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri [Google Scholar]
  15. Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
    (eds.) 2004Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg, Adele
    1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian Matthiessen
    2006Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London, Oxford & New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Hoffmann, Thomas & Alexander Bergs
    2014 Are you a construction in disguise? Was Fußballgesänge uns über soziale und physische Kontexteigenschaften von Konstruktionen lehren. InAlexander Ziem & Alexander Lasch (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV, 115–131. Tübingen: Stauffenburg,
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoffman, Thomas & Alexander Bergs
    2018 A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes18. doi:  10.4000/cognitextes.1032
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1032 [Google Scholar]
  22. Holland, John
    1998From chaos to order. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2005 Language acquisition as a complex adaptive system. InJames Minett & William Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence, 411–435. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Iza Erviti, Aneider
    2017 Discourse constructions in English: Meaning, form and hierarchies (Doctoral dissertation) Universidad de La Rioja, Spain.
  25. Knott, Alistair & Ted Sanders
    1998 The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers. Journal of Pragmatics30(2). 135–175. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. InAndrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed., 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lambrecht, Knut
    1996Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2004 On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions. InMirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 157–199. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.05lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.05lam [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1984 Active Zones. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 172–188. 10.3765/bls.v10i0.3175
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v10i0.3175 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Linell, Per
    2009 Grammatical constructions in dialogue. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 97–110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.05lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin [Google Scholar]
  33. Mairal, Ricardo & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza
    2009 Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. InChristopher S. Butler & Javier Martín (eds.), Deconstructing constructions, 153–198. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  34. Mann, William & Sandra Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text8(3). 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  35. McKeown, Kathleen R.
    1985Text generation: Using discourse strategies and focus constraints to generate natural language text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620751
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620751 [Google Scholar]
  36. Michaelis, Laura & Knut Lambrecht
    1996 Toward a construction-based theory of language function. Language72(2). 215–247. 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    2009 Constructional analysis. InFrank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics, 16–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5.01nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.01nik [Google Scholar]
  38. Östman, Jan-Ola
    1999 Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns. InWolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.08ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.08ost [Google Scholar]
  39. 2005 Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried. (eds.), Construction Grammars, 121–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  40. Östman, Jan-Ola & Mirjam Fried
    2005 The cognitive grounding of Constructional Grammar. InJan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried. (eds.), Construction Grammars, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.01ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.01ost [Google Scholar]
  41. Östman, Jan-Ola & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 476–490. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & María Ángeles Gómez-González
    2014 Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. InMaría Ángeles Gómez-González, Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space, 295–314. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal
    2008 Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica42(2). 355–400.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis
    2010 A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames2(2). 158–184. 10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup [Google Scholar]
  45. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2010 Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. InDirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (ed.) 2017Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we organize and adapt linguistic knowledge. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.30.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.03ste [Google Scholar]
  49. Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen
    (eds.) 2016Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110469639
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110469639 [Google Scholar]
  50. Taboada, Maite & María de los Ángeles Gómez-González
    2010 Discourse markers and coherence relations. Linguistics and the Human Sciences6(1–3). 17–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. The Five Graces Group
    The Five Graces Group (Clay Beckner, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, Tom Schoenemann) 2009 Language is a complex-adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning59(1). 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1979 Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics3(5). 447–456. 10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  53. Vergaro, Carla
    2002 “Dear sirs, what would you do if you were in our position?” Discourse strategies of Italian and English chasing money letters. Journal of Pragmatics34(9). 1211–1233. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00046‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00046-2 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2008 Concessive constructions in English business letter discourse. Text & Talk28(1). 97–118. 10.1515/TEXT.2008.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.005 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wide, Camilla
    2009 Interactional construction grammar. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.06wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.06wid [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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