The paper deals with the pragmatic functions of metaconstructions in the context and their role in revealing the systemic relations between semasiological metatextual indicators according to the "in + adjective + sense/meaning" model. The author introduces a definition of the term "metaconstruction" and makes a difference between a metaconstruction (as a phenomenon of constructive syntax) and a correlative pair of the semasiological metatextual indicators functioning in a text. The purpose of the work is to analyze the pragmatic functions of the semasiological metatextual indicators within construction and the system relations between them by integrating semantic-pragmatic and constructive approaches. The classification of meta-constructions is made depending on syntactic connections (conjunctive/non-conjunctive) and. semantic status of a conjunction-connector. The analysis of the various conjunction metaconstructions made it possible to conclude that their type is associated with the specific pragmatic function in the context: of actualizing some lexical-semantic variations of a word-topic or the only meaning and providing the linearity of a text in combination with splitting a topic. The metaconstructions are considered from the perspective of semantic syntax. The metaconstructions, in which the conjunction connectors (u or kappa alpha kappa..., m alpha kappa u ...) explicate conjunction proposition, may perform both pragmatic functions. The gradational metaconstructions, as well as conjunction ones, are characterized by the function of actualization of two lexical-semantic variations, with one of them being emphasized by the author. The metaconstructions, in which adversative connectors explicate the proposition of opposition, perform the same pragmatic function -the actualization of one of two possible meanings of a word-topic. The ability of the semasiological metatextual indicators to join into metaconstructions indicates the existence of the system relations between them: additional, antonymous and synonymous. The regularity of using the metaconstructions with the conjunction connectors means that a person of ordinary metalinguistic mentality has the clear idea of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word. An adversative conjunction-connector explicates the antonymous relations. In this case, a speaker pays attention to the contrast of direct and figurative meanings, in contrast to conjunction metaconstruction, when the metatextual indicators emphasize the integrity of the semantic structure of a lexeme. The synonymous relations in non-conjunction metaconstructions are irregular, are expressed implicitly, and due to non-differentiation of semantics, they are contextual.