Cover not available

Article published In: English Text Construction
Vol. 7:2 (2014) ► pp.215–248

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

‘Author (date)’ constructions in academic discourse

Published online: 3 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.2.03li
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
References (52)
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): [URL].
Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Same-Except: A domain general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language 88 (2): 305-340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressen-Hammouda, Dacia. 2008. From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes 27 (2): 233-252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 2007. Discovering Syntax: Clause Structures of English, German and Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84 (1): 8-28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2007. What is optimality theory? Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series. Paper 93. [URL] (last accessed on 14 April 2014).
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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchler, Justus (ed.). 1955. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: The Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 323-340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 121: 109-132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30(6): 755-769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de 61: 91-116.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2004. Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol 19 (4): 245-264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 51: 1-23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990/2001. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 2005. Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41: 307-323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, and Criticism. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. 2004. Anaphoric pronouns of metonymic expressions. metaphorik.de 71: 105-114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Howard D. 2004. Citation analysis and discourse analysis revisited. Applied Linguistics 251: 89-116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Michael. 2003. Metaphor and economics: The case of growth. English for Specific Purposes 22 (2): 131-151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Su, Hang, Jingyao Chen & Xiaofei Lu
2025. Discourse acts, local grammars, and constructions in academic writing: The case of ‘exemplifying’ construction network. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 78 ► pp. 101596 ff. DOI logo
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 9 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue