Volume 45 Number 2
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



occurs in several phrases, including the [] construction. Its constructionalization is more advanced than that of other nouns: it can now be used as a true discourse marker, in the left or in the right periphery. The data confirm the influence of position on pragmatic function. Cataphoric mainly fulfills discursive functions (summation, contradiction, sub-topic shift or topic-resumption), while anaphoric is an intersubjective expression that signals turn and topic closure and aims at pre-empting potential disalignment. However, the cataphoric discourse marker is also undergoing incipient intersubjectification. This is due to the deletion of the copula, which allows to have scope over the interlocutor’s discourse rather than simply over its host sentence.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, K.
    2007 The interface between discourse and grammar: the fact is that. InA. Celle & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks, 31–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.161.05aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.161.05aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenberg, B.
    1998 On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. InAnthony. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications, 101–122. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beeching, K. & Detges, U.
    2014 Introduction. InK. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brinton, L.
    1996Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2008The Comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  7. Curzan, A.
    2012 Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. InT. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds). The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 211–221. Oxford: Oxford Uinversity Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0020 [Google Scholar]
  8. Davies, M.
    2008–The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019. Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010–The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coha
  10. Degand, L. & Fagard, B.
    2011Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18 (1), 29–56. 10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg [Google Scholar]
  11. Delahunty, G.
    2011 Contextually determined fixity and flexibility in thing sentence matrixes.’ Yearbook of Phraseology, 21, 109–136. 10.1515/9783110236200.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110236200.109 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012 An analysis of the thing is that sentences, Pragmatics, 22 (1). 41–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Bois, J. W.
    2002 Stance and consequence. Paper presented atAnnual meetings of the American anthropological association, New Orleans, LA, November 20–24.
  14. Erman, B. & Warren, B.
    2000 The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 201, 29–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fairclough, N.
    1995Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraser, B.
    1996 Pragmatic Marker. Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A.
    1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haselow, A.
    2015 Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: the case of anyway. InA. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heritage, J.
    2015Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 881, 88–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hilpert, M.
    2013Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. A.
    2008 Projectability and clause combining in interaction. InL. Ritva (Ed.). Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  23. Hundt, M.
    2022a Constructional variation and change in N-is focaliser constructions. InL. Sommerer & E. Keizer (Eds.). English noun phrases from a functional-cognitive perspective: Current issues, 206–233. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.221.06hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.06hun [Google Scholar]
  24. 2022b N-is Focalizers as semi-fixed constructions: modeling variation across World Englishes, Journal of English Linguistics, 115–141. 10.1177/00754242221081241
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242221081241 [Google Scholar]
  25. Keizer, E.
    2013 The X Is (Is) Construction. InJ. L. Mackenzie & H. Olbertz (Eds.). Casebook in functional discourse grammar, 213–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.137.09kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.137.09kei [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 The (the) Fact is (that) Construction in English and Dutch. InG. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer & A. Lohmann (Eds.). Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 59–96. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.03kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.03kei [Google Scholar]
  27. Lenker, U.
    2010Argument and rhetoric: adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216066
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216066 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mantlik, A. & Schmid, H.-J.
    2018That-complementiser omission in N + be + that-clauses. InA. Ho-Cheong Leung & W. van der Wurff (Eds.). The noun phrase in English: Past and present, 187–222. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.246.07man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.246.07man [Google Scholar]
  29. Mautner, G.
    2010Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855997
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855997 [Google Scholar]
  30. Miller, J. & Weinert, R.
    1998Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mulder, J. & Thompson, S. A.
    2008 The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. InL. Ritva (Ed.). Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.09mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.09mul [Google Scholar]
  32. The Oxford English dictionary
    The Oxford English dictionary. Online edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Pinson, M.
    forthcoming. From the financial to the metatextual: the emergence of discursive bottom line. InC. Petraş Ed. Metalinguistic Markers: Emergence, Discourse, Variation.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ross-Hagebaum, S.
    2005 The that’s X is Y construction as an information-structure amalgam. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 301, 403–414. 10.3765/bls.v30i1.961
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v30i1.961 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmid, H.-J.
    2000English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2001 Presupposition can be a bluff: How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 1529–1552. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00027‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00027-3 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2018 Shell nouns in English – a personal roundup. Caplletra, 641, 109–128. 10.7203/caplletra.64.11368
    https://doi.org/10.7203/caplletra.64.11368 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2020 How the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model might enrich diachronic construction grammar: The case of (the) thing is (that). InT. Colleman, F. Brisard, A. De Wit, R. Enghels, N. Koutsoukos, T. Mortelmans & M. S. Sansiñena. The wealth and breadth of construction-based research, 306–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Shibasaki, R.
    2014a On the development of the point is and related issues in the history of American English. English Linguistics, 31 (1), 79–113. 10.9793/elsj.31.1_79
    https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj.31.1_79 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2014b On the grammaticalization of the thing is and related issues in the history of American English. InM. Adams, R. D. Fulk & L. Brinton (Eds.). Studies in the history of English languageVI1, 99–121. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2018 Sequentiality and the emergence of new constructions: That’s the bottom line is (that) in American English. InH. Cuyckens, H. de Smet, L. Heyvaert & C. Maekelberghe (Eds.). Explorations in English historical syntax, 283–306. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.198.12shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.198.12shi [Google Scholar]
  42. Traugott, E.
    2010 (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InK. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2014 On the function of the epistemic adverbs surely and no doubt at the left and right peripheries of the clause. InK. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 72–91. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2018 Rethinking the role of invited inferencing in change from the perspective of interactional texts. Open Linguistics, 4 (1). 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2022Discourse structuring markers in English: a historical constructionist perspective on pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.33
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.33 [Google Scholar]
  46. Traugott, E. & Dasher, R.
    2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Traugott, E. & Trousdale, G.
    2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, H.
    2016 The (X) thing is: From a matrix clause to a discourse marker. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 555–577. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0021 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wray, A.
    2008Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2012 What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 231–254. 10.1017/S026719051200013X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051200013X [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error