1887
Volume 47, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates vague cataphoric reference with shell nouns in the N- construction (e.g. ). It highlights the ties between the construction, which is sometimes analysed as a specfticational copular sentence, shell nouns, which function to some extent like pronouns, and reference. Using a corpus of spoken British English, it shows that referent identification is however not always achieved with this construction and puts forward several contextual that contribute to the vague reference for the shell noun, such as the form and complexity of the shell content or the larger context. The article finally offers interactional perspectives and shows that speakers can use the construction with its vague cataphoric potential as turn-taking or floor-holding device.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.00117.ber
2025-01-24
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbot, B.
    (2010) Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adler, S. & Legallois, D.
    (2018) Les noms sous-spécifiés dans le débat parlementaire : analyse fréquentielle et catégorisation modale. Langue francaise, 1981, 19–34. 10.3917/lf.198.0019
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.198.0019 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.161.05aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.161.05aij [Google Scholar]
  4. Akmajian, A.
    (1970) Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, P.
    (2009) Projection and Minimalistic Syntax in Interaction. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 180–205. 10.1080/01638530902728934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728934 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benitez-Castro, M-A.
    (2021) Shell-Noun Use in Disciplinary Student Writing: A Multifaceted Analysis of Problem and Way in Third-Year Undergraduate Writing across Three Disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 611, 132-49.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berthe, F.
    (2021a) De la clivée en th- la structure the-N-is en anglais oral: Vers une lecture discursive, prosodique et dialogique. PhD thesis, Université de Lorraine et Université d’Augsburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2021b) The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that…: de la modalité au positionnement énonciatif dans les structures projectives. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 321. 10.4000/anglophonia.3972
    https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.3972 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2022) From the pseudo-cleft to the the-N-is construction in spoken English: The birth of a new paradigm. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 331. 10.4000/anglophonia.4711
    https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.4711 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Connor, U.
    (1984) A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17(3), 301–316. 10.1080/08351818409389208
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389208 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coppock, E., Brenier, J., Staum, L. & Michaelis, L.
    (2006) The thing is, is Is No Mere Disfluency. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32(1), 85–96. 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3444
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3444 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crible, L.
    (2017) Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French: variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus linguistics, 22(2), 242–269. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri [Google Scholar]
  14. Declerck, R.
    (1988) Studies on copular sentences, clefts, and pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dehé, N. & Wichmann, A.
    (2010) Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for uses as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language, 341, 36–74. 10.1075/sl.34.1.02deh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.1.02deh [Google Scholar]
  16. Delahunty, G.
    (2011) Contextually Determined Fixity and Flexibility in “Thing” Sentence Matrixes. Yearbook of Phraseology, 2(1), 109–36. 10.1515/9783110236200.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110236200.109 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) An Analysis of The Thing Is That Sentences. Pragmatics, 22(1), 41–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Flowerdew, J.
    (2006) Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 345–362. 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.07flo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.3.07flo [Google Scholar]
  19. (2010) Use of signalling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 36–55. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.02flo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.02flo [Google Scholar]
  20. Flowerdew, J. & Forest, R. W.
    (2015) Signalling Nouns in English: A Corpus-Based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139135405
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135405 [Google Scholar]
  21. Francis, G.
    (1994) Labelling Discourse: An Aspect of Nominal-Group Lexical Cohesion. InCoulthard, M. (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 97–115. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Günthner, S.
    (2011) N Be That-Constructions in Everyday German Conversation: A Reanalysis of Die Sache Ist/Das Ding Ist (‘the Thing Is’)-Clauses as Projector Phrases. InR. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds), Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 241, 11–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.24.03gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.03gun [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, A.
    (2002) So…?: Pragmatic Implications of So-Prefaced Questions in Formal Police Interviews. InJ. Cotterill (Ed), Language in the Legal Process, 91-110. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hundt, M.
    (2022) N-is Focalizers as Semi-fixed Constructions: Modeling Variation across World Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics, 50(2), 115–141. 10.1177/00754242221081241
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242221081241 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jiang, F. & Hyland, K.
    (2017) Metadiscursive Nouns: Interaction and Cohesion in Abstract Moves. English for Specific Purposes, 451, 1–14. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnsen, L. A.
    (2019) La sous-détermination référentielle et les désignateurs vagues en français contemporain. Berlin: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b13008
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b13008 [Google Scholar]
  28. Keizer, E.
    (2013) The X Is (Is) Construction: An FDG account. InJ. Lachlan Mackenzie & H. Olbertz (Eds), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar, 213–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.137.09kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.137.09kei [Google Scholar]
  29. (2016) The (the) Fact Is (That) Construction in English and Dutch: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. InG. Kaltenböck (Eds), Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 59–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.03kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.03kei [Google Scholar]
  30. Kolhatkar, V. & Hirst, G.
    (2014) Resolving shell nouns. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2014), 499–510. 10.3115/v1/D14‑1056
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1056 [Google Scholar]
  31. Legallois, D. & Grea, P.
    (2006) L’objectif de cet article est de… Construction spécificationnelle et grammaire phraséologique. Cahiers de praxématique, 461, 161-86.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T.
    (2017) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mantlik, A. & Schmid, H.-J.
    (2018) That-complementizer omission in N+BE+that-clauses — register variation or constructional change?InA. Ho-Cheong Leun & W. van der Wurdd (Eds), The noun phrase in English: past and present, 187–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.246.07man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.246.07man [Google Scholar]
  34. Massam, D.
    (1999) Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis?English Language and Linguistics, 31, 335–352. 10.1017/S136067439900026X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067439900026X [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2000) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: from corpus to cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 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, 33(10), 1529–1552. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00027‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00027-3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Tåqvist, M.
    (2016) “Another Thing”: Discourse-Organising Nouns in Advanced Learner English. PhD Thesis, Karlstads Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tuggy, D.
    (1996) The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is Why?InE. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, 713–752. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110811421.713
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811421.713 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00117.ber
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00117.ber
Loading

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