Conjunctions are one type of discourse relational devices and their translation may depend not only on their semantic meaning but also on the pragmatic functions they perform. Conjunctions carry semantic meaning which may overlap or intertwine with the pragmatic function or conjunctions may simply demonstrate their pragmatic behaviour. Various scholars group conjunctions and discourse relational devices in different ways, while the authors analyse adversative conjunctions (according to Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) classification) in spoken Lithuanian and English. The paper researches how the most frequent English adversative conjunctions but and yet (Rudolph, 1996) are translated into Lithuanian and what might determine one or another translator’s preference. Corpus-based comparative discourse analysis is carried out, using the English-Lithuanian part of the parallel corpus compiled by Vytautas Magnus University. In different languages different variations of conjunctions are used to ensure discourse relations and the differences become even more visible if the translations of the connectives (conjunctions) are compared (Degand, Zufferey, 2013). It was established by the research that translations of the conjunctions vary, they may be translated by the conjunctions provided by dictionaries, or, taking into consideration their pragmatic function, might be transferred into a different linguistic category like particles or adverbs or are simply omitted. However, such strategies as omission or paraphrasing are not an easy choice for a translator, as they may imply a slight change of the meaning. The most frequent translations coincide with the meanings provided by dictionaries.