Cover not available
Article published In:
On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 348–379

Frames for clause combining

Schematicity and formulaicity in discourse patterns

 | Department of communication sciences and disorders, University of Haifa
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 discourse pattern, 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 field, tenor, and mode. 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.
Keywords: frames, narrative, text type, genre, relative clauses, clause combining, syntactic constructions, discourse patterns, expository text, discourse analysis
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.07nir
References (128)
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Askehave, I., & Swales, J.M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 221, 195–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2011) Constructions. Emerging and emergent. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R.A. (2007). Developing register differentiation: The Latinate-Germanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45(1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2009) Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written communication, 10(4), 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R.A. (1978). Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects, Ltd.Google Scholar
. (1997). Narrative theory and narrative development: The Labovian impact. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 71, 235–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(2), 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35(4), 735–771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R.A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2004). Linguistic indicators of inter-genre differentiation in later language development. Journal of Child Language, 311, 339–380 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 431, 79–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Berman, R.A., & Slobin, D.I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Crosslinguistic perspectives on developing text production abilities in speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 51, 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27(1), 3–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language, 65(3), 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, D. (1997). An introduction to genre theory. Media and Communication Studies: [URL].Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S. (2003) Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Du Bois, J.W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 631, 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 43–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Duffield, C.J., & Michaelis, L.A. (2011). Why subject relatives prevail: Constraints versus constructional licensing. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 171–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Fillmore, C.J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–79). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
. (1982). Frame Semantics. Linguistic society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2000). Genres, text types, or discourse modes: Narrative modalities and generic categorization. Style, 34(2), 274–292.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Nikiforidou, K. (Eds.). (2013). Advances in frame semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A., & Goutsos, D. (2000a). Mapping the world of discourse. The narrative vs. non-narrative distinction. Semiotica, 131(1/2), 113–141 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000b). Revisiting discourse boundaries. The narrative and non-narrative modes. Text, 20(1), 63–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (1990). On the so-called evaluative material in informative text. Text, 41, 299–319.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1980). The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language, 4(3), 333–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). Syntax: A functional typological introduction, Vol. 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. (2004). The grammar of modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., & Knoblauch, H. (1995). Culturally patterned speaking practices. The analysis of communicative genres. Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. (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
. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halmari, H., & Östman, J.–O. (2001). The soft–spoken, angelic pickax killer: The notion of discourse pattern in controversial news reporting. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 805–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
. (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
Herman, D. (2008). Description, narrative, and explanation: Text-type categories and the cognitive foundations of discourse competence. Poetics Today, 29(3), 437–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Ways of speaking. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, 11, 433–451.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Jisa, H., & Viguié, A. (2005). A developmental perspective on the role of ‘on’ in written and spoken expository texts in French. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jisa, H., Reilly, J., Verhoeven, L., Baruch, E., & Rosado, E. (2002). Passive voice constructions in written texts. Written Languages and Literacy, 51, 163–182 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Kinneavy, J. (1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. (2009). Formulaic genres. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K., & Haggo, D. (1984). Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language. Language in society, 13(2), 205–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. (1997). Some further steps in narrative history. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 71, 394–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Lewin, B.A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Longacre, R.E. (1996). The grammar of discourse, 2nd edition. [Topics in Language and Linguistics]. New York: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Holistic textlinguistics. In C.L. Moder & A. Martinovic-Zic (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures (pp. 13–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, B. (1999). Iconicity.Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 91, 107–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D.D., Richards, B.J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J.M., & Johnson, N. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 111–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J.R. (2012). Grammar meets genre: Reflections on the ‘Sydney School’. Arts: The Journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 221, 48–95.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (1993). Iconicity in discourse: The story of Echo. Poetics today, 14(4), 653–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Moessner, L. (2001) Genre, text type, style, register: A terminological maze? European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 131–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosenthal, P.B. (1985). Defining the expository discourse continuum. Poetics, 141, 387–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. (2008). Clause packages as constructions in developing narrative discourse . PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Nir, B., & Berman, R.A. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 744–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
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 logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). The postcard as media. Text, 24(3), 423–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B. (1995). Analyzing genre: A relational perspective. System, 23(4), 503–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research setting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 51, 95–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun Scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 791–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D., & Berman, R.A. (2009). Developing linguistic register across text types: The case of modern Hebrew. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1), 108–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 51, 68–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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, 371, 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 601, 36–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C.S. (2003). Modes of discourse: The local structure of texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. (1999). Genres of discourse and the definition of literature. Discourse Processes, 281, 109–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T.A. (1980). Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). News as discourse. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, T., & Warvik, B. (1987). Observations sur les types de texte. Communications, 81, 91–114.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Nir, Bracha & Efrat Sher-Censor
2024. Integrating attachment and linguistic perspectives on the coherence of narratives regarding close relationships: A qualitative illustration. Acta Psychologica 246 ► pp. 104242 ff. DOI logo
Cohen-Koka, Shirit, Bracha Nir & Irit Meir
2022. Linguistic Variation, Discourse Analysis, and Deaf Education: Case Studies from ISL. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 28:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Cohen-Koka, Shirit, Bracha Nir & Irit Meir
2023. Variation of sign parameters in narrative and expository discourse. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
Berman, Ruth A.
2020. Genitive (smixut) constructions in Modern Hebrew. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo
Berman, Ruth A.
2022. Developmental Pathways in Child and Adult Hebrew: The Case of the Subordinator še-. In Developing Language and Literacy [Literacy Studies, 23], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Nir, Bracha
2020. A usage-based typology of Modern Hebrew syntax. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 659 ff. DOI logo
Wasserscheidt, Philipp
2019. Sovpadenie? Frame manipulation with bare nouns. Russian Linguistics 43:3 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2018. Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3 ► pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Vergaro, Carla
2018. A cognitive framework for understanding genre. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3 ► pp. 430 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.