Cover not available
Article published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 7:2 (2014) ► pp.215–248

‘Author (date)’ constructions in academic discourse

This article elucidates the semantics and pragmatics of a genre-specific nominal pattern with a definite referring function, the ‘Author (date)’ construction, which is widely used in scientific discourse. We investigate the conceptual structure and pragmatic use of this construction in terms of conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor theory. The construction exhibits three senses: a literal ‘author’, a metonymic ‘work’, and a metaphorized ‘human agent’ sense (personification). Contextual factors that enable, coerce, or preempt the occurrence of these meanings are identified by means of various grammatical and semantic-pragmatic parameters, such as number agreement, anaphoric constraints, and the meaning of verbs collocating with the construction. Finally, the implications of our theoretical findings for the teaching and learning of academic discourse are considered. Keywords: conceptual metonymy; conceptual metaphor; genre-specific construction; personification; teaching and learning of academic discourse
Published online: 3 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.2.03li
References (52)
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): [URL].
Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Same-Except: A domain general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language 88 (2): 305-340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressen-Hammouda, Dacia. 2008. From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes 27 (2): 233-252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 2007. Discovering Syntax: Clause Structures of English, German and Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84 (1): 8-28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2007. What is optimality theory? Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series. Paper 93. [URL] (last accessed on 14 April 2014). DOI logo DOI logo
Peeters, Bert. 2000. Does cognitive linguistics live up to its name? In Language and Ideology, Vol. I1, René Dirven, Bruce Hawkins and Esra Sandikcioglu (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83-106.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter. 2006. Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics. In History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe and Kees Versteegh (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2026-2034.Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter. 1995. Analysability, accessibility, and ability for use. In Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson, Guy Cook and Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-106.Google Scholar
Buchler, Justus (ed.). 1955. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2009. Genitives and proper names in constructional blends. In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 24), Vyvyan Evans and Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 161-181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: The Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Collin Baker. 2009. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 313-339.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 323-340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Julia Berenike. 2013. Metaphor in academic discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations. PhD dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam.
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipson, Charles. 2006. Cite Right: A Quick Guide to Citation Styles—MLA, APA, Chicago, the Sciences, Professions, and More. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 121: 109-132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe. 2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32), Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 353-386.Google Scholar
. 2006. Metonymy as a usage event. In Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives (Applications in Cognitive Linguistics 1), Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven and Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 147-185.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Günter Radden. 2005. Metonymy. In Handbook of Pragmatics 2003-2005, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30(6): 755-769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. The potentiality for actualtiy metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4), Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 333-357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 113), Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de 61: 91-116.Google Scholar
. 2007. Metonymy. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 236-263.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2004. Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol 19 (4): 245-264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter and Zoltán Kövecses. 2007. Towards a theory of metonymy. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken (eds.). London and Oakville, CT: Equinox Publishing, 335-359.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter and Klaus-Uwe Panther. 2010. Metonymy. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, Patrick C. Hogan (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 501-502.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Antonio Barcelona (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 109-132.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 51: 1-23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard J. 2007. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990/2001. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 2005. Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41: 307-323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, and Criticism. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. 2004. Anaphoric pronouns of metonymic expressions. metaphorik.de 71: 105-114.Google Scholar
White, Howard D. 2004. Citation analysis and discourse analysis revisited. Applied Linguistics 251: 89-116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Michael. 2003. Metaphor and economics: The case of growth. English for Specific Purposes 22 (2): 131-151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hasselgård, Hilde
2021. Attribution in novice academic writing. English Text Construction 14:2 ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017. On constructional blocking of metonymies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 2024. 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.