1887
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

Prescriptivists have long proscribed sentence-initial (SIA), and sentence-initial (SIB). However, SIA and SIB are increasingly used in newspapers and style guides have softened strictures against their use. Moreover, SIA and SIB are amongst the most frequently occurring sentence-initial connectives within their respective semantic groups of additives and contrastives. Given their use despite prohibitions, this paper examines the patterns of occurrence and function of SIA and SIB in academic writing. The data come from 1 million words of academic prose: 11 journals representing science, social science, and humanities. The data confirm the findings of Biber et al. (1999) that while coordinator is more frequent in academic prose than , SIA is much less frequent than SIB. The data also reveal a marked difference between low SIA and SIB occurrences in scientific writing and much higher occurrences in social science and humanities. Plus, SIA is the preferred additive connective compared with , , and , etc., and SIB is the second most preferred contrastive connective after . SIA and SIB in academic writing function in three very similar ways: (i) to mark off a discourse unit by indicating the last item on a list, (ii) to indicate the development of an argument, and (iii) to indicate a discontinuity or shift with a previous discourse unit. Whereas the most common function of SIA is that of indicating the last item on a list, the most common use of SIB is in the development of arguments. SIA and SIB perform special functions that the alternatives of asyndetic or “zero” coordination, the use of similar discourse markers: , , and respectively, or intrasentential coordination cannot perform. These special functions are derived from their particular semantic meanings, their role as coordinating conjunctions, and their reduced phonological prominence. These features allow SIA and SIB to preface a wider range of lexico-grammatical units such as interrogatives, stance adverbs and other discourse connectives and to create a tighter form of cohesion. It is these special features of cohesion rather than a move to colloquiality which are held to explain the occurrence of SIA and SIB in academic writing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.2.01bel
2007-01-01
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bazerman, Charles
    (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, David M
    (1998) Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8.4: 515-542.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas , et al
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, England: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore, Diane
    (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2001) Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but . Journal of Linguistics 36.3: 463-48. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700008355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700008355 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The Semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2005)  and-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics37: 1165-1181. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.003
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blakemore, Diane , and Robyn Carston
    (2005) The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and . Lingua115.4: 569-589. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carston, Robyn
    (2002) Thoughts and utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carston, Robyn , and Diane Blakemore
    (2005) Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua115.4: 353-358. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cotter, Colleen
    (2003) Prescriptions and practice: Motivations behind changes in news discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4.1: 45-74. doi: 10.1075/jhp.4.1.04cot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.4.1.04cot [Google Scholar]
  12. Cunningham, Helen , and Brenda Greene
    (2002) The Business Style Handbook. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dorgeloh, Heidrun
    (2004) Conjunction in sentence and discourse: Sentence initial and and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 36.10: 1761-1779. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.004
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Halliday, M.A.K. , and Ruqaiya Hasan
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Huttar, Charles A
    (2002) Introductory And as a device in poetry-making. Philological Quarterly 81.2: 139-57.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Nemo, François
    (2006) Discourse particles as morphemes and as constructions. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.375-402.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pander Maat, Henk , and Liesbeth Degand
    (2001) Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics12.3: 211-245.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Quirk, Randolph , et al
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar Of The English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Raimes, Ann
    (2002) Keys for Writers: A Brief Handbook. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Schiffrin, Deborah
    (1986) Functions of “and” in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics10: 41-66. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90099‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90099-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and . In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 315-338.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sotirova, Violeta
    (2004) Connectives in free indirect style: Continuity or shift?Language and Literature13.3: 216-234. doi: 10.1177/0963947004044872
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004044872 [Google Scholar]
  24. Thompson, Geoff
    (2005) But me some buts: A multidimensional view of conjunction. Text 25.26: 763-791.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    (1986) On the origins of “and” and “but” connectives in English. Studies in Language 10.1: 137-150. doi: 10.1075/sl.10.1.08clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.1.08clo [Google Scholar]
  26. Umbach, Carla
    (2005) Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but . Linguistics 43.1: 207-232. doi: 10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.2.01bel
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