Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 17:2 (2007) ► pp.183–201
Sentence-initial And and But in academic writing
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 June 2007
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.2.01bel
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.2.01bel
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.
References (26)
Bazerman, Charles (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bell, David M. (1998) Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8.4: 515-542. BoP
Biber, Douglas, et al.. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, England: Longman.
(2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The Semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
(2005)
and-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1165-1181. BoP
Blakemore, Diane, and Robyn Carston (2005) The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and
. Lingua 115.4: 569-589.
Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. MetBib
Carston, Robyn, and Diane Blakemore (2005) Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua 115.4: 353-358.
Cotter, Colleen (2003) Prescriptions and practice: Motivations behind changes in news discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4.1: 45-74.
Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2004) Conjunction in sentence and discourse: Sentence initial and and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 36.10: 1761-1779. BoP
Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman. BoP
Huttar, Charles A. (2002) Introductory And as a device in poetry-making. Philological Quarterly 81.2: 139-57.
Nemo, François (2006) Discourse particles as morphemes and as constructions. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.375-402.
Pander Maat, Henk, and Liesbeth Degand (2001) Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12.3: 211-245.
Quirk, Randolph, et al.. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar Of The English Language. London: Longman. BoP
(1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
(2006) Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and
. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 315-338.
Sotirova, Violeta (2004) Connectives in free indirect style: Continuity or shift? Language and Literature 13.3: 216-234.
Thompson, Geoff (2005) But me some buts: A multidimensional view of conjunction. Text 25.26: 763-791. BoP
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1986) On the origins of “and” and “but” connectives in English. Studies in Language 10.1: 137-150.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Lyu, Jing, Muhammad Ilyas Chishti & Zhibin Peng
Ebrahimi, Seyed Foad & Seyed Aqil Fakheri
Lee, Joseph J., Tetyana Bychkovska & James D. Maxwell
Makkonen-Craig, Henna
Rossette, Fiona
Yong-Yae Park
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 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.
