Sentence-initial And and But in academic writing

David M. Bell

Abstract

Prescriptivists have long proscribed sentence-initial And (SIA), and sentence-initial But (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 and is more frequent in academic prose than but, 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 moreover, furthermore, and in addition, etc., and SIB is the second most preferred contrastive connective after however. 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: moreover, furthermore, in addition, and however, 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.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Bazerman, Charles
(1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bell, David M
(1998) Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8.4: 515-542.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, et al.
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
(1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2001) Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but . Journal of Linguistics 36.3: 463-48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The Semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2005)  and-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1165-1181. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane, and Robyn Carston
(2005) The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and . Lingua 115.4: 569-589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
(2002) Thoughts and utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Crossref  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, and Diane Blakemore
(2005) Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua 115.4: 353-358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cotter, Colleen
(2003) Prescriptions and practice: Motivations behind changes in news discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4.1: 45-74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Helen, and Brenda Greene
(2002) The Business Style Handbook. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun
(2004) Conjunction in sentence and discourse: Sentence initial and and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 36.10: 1761-1779. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Huttar, Charles A
(2002) Introductory And as a device in poetry-making. Philological Quarterly 81.2: 139-57.Google Scholar
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
Pander Maat, Henk, and Liesbeth Degand
(2001) Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12.3: 211-245.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, et al.
(1985) A Comprehensive Grammar Of The English Language. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Raimes, Ann
(2002) Keys for Writers: A Brief Handbook. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
(1986) Functions of “and” in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 41-66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2006) Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and . In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 315-338.Google Scholar
Sotirova, Violeta
(2004) Connectives in free indirect style: Continuity or shift? Language and Literature 13.3: 216-234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
(2005) But me some buts: A multidimensional view of conjunction. Text 25.26: 763-791.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
(1986) On the origins of “and” and “but” connectives in English. Studies in Language 10.1: 137-150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Umbach, Carla
(2005) Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but . Linguistics 43.1: 207-232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar