Volume 21, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


Although there is a growing body of research on inferential sentences (Declerck 1992, Delahunty 1990, 1995, 2001, Koops 2007, Pusch 2006), most of this research has been on their forms and functions in written discourse. This has left a gap with regards to their range of structural properties and allowed disagreement over their analysis to linger without a conclusive resolution. Most accounts regard the inferential as a type of (Declerck 1992, Delahunty 2001, Huddleston and Pullum 2002, Lambrecht 2001), while a few view it as an instance of extraposition (Collins 1991, Schmid 2009). More recently, Pusch’s work in Romance languages proposes the inferential is used as a discourse marker (2006, forthcoming). Based on a corpus study of examples from spoken New Zealand English, the current paper provides a detailed analysis of the formal and discoursal properties of several sub-types of inferentials (positive, negative, and inferentials). We show that despite their apparent formal differences from the prototypical cleft, inferentials are nevertheless best analysed as a type of cleft, though this requires a minor reinterpretation of “cleft construction.” We show how similar the contextualized interpretations of clefts and inferentials are and how these are a function of their lexis and syntax.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, K
    (2002) English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Studies in corpus linguistics 10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, J.L
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barlow, M
    (2010) How to distinguish individual speakers: A corpus-based investigation of idiolects. Manuscript.
  4. Bearth, T
    (1997) Inferential and counter-inferential grammatical markers in Swahili dialogue. In E.M. Beck , T. Geider , W. Graebner , and I. Heine (eds.), Swahili forum. Cologne: Universität zu Köln.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1999) The inferential gap condition. Pragmatics9: 249-288.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bender, E. , and D. Flickinger
    (1999) Diachronic evidence for extended argument structure. In G. Bouma , E.W. Hinrichs , G.M. Kruijff , and R. Oehrle (eds.), Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics. G. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 1-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. , S. Johansson , G. Leech , S. Conrad , and E. Finegan
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blakemore, D
    (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2004) Discourse markers. In L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 221-240.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blass, R
    (1990) Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 55, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586293
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586293 [Google Scholar]
  11. Calude, A
    (2009a) Cleft constructions in spoken English. Berlin: VDM Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2009b) Formulaic tendencies of demonstrative clefts in spoken English. In R. Corrigan , E.A. Moravcsik , H. Quali , and K.M. Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language: Volume 1. Distribution and historical cxhange. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 55-76. doi: 10.1075/tsl.82.03for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.03for [Google Scholar]
  13. Calude, A. , and G. Delahunty
    (2010) Inferentials: Fixed or not?Paper presented at The international conference on fixed phrases in English . October 22-24, University of Perpignan, Via Domitia.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Calude, A. , and S. Miller
    (2009) Are clefts contagious in conversation?English Language and Linguistics. 13: 127-132. doi: 10.1017/S136067430800289X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067430800289X [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins, P
    (1991) Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203202463
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202463 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dancygier, B. , and E. Sweetser
    (2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486760
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760 [Google Scholar]
  17. Declerck, R
    (1988) Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Foris: Leuven. doi: 10.1515/9783110869330
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  18. (1992) The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua87: 203-230. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90008‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90008-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. Delahunty, G
    (1990) Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics15: 1-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1995) The inferential construction. Pragmatics5: 341-364.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics39: 517-545. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.022 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) A relevance theoretic analysis of not that sentences: “Not that there is anything wrong with that.”Pragmatics 16: 213-245.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Delahunty, G. , and L. Gatzkiewicz
    (2000) On the Spanish inferential construction ser que . Pragmatics10: 301-322.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dirven, R
    (1989) A cognitive perspective on complementation. In D. Jaspers , Y. Putseys , W. Klooster and P. Seuren (eds.), Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 113-139.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Doherty, M
    (2001) Discourse functions and language-specific conditions for the use of cleft{-like} sentences: A prelude. Linguistics39.3: 457-362.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Edmonds, A
    (2010) On the representation of conventional expressions in L1-English and L2-French. Ph.D. dissertation, Departments of French and Italian and Linguistics, Indiana University.
  27. Fraser, B
    (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14: 383-395. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  28. (1996) Pragmatic markers. people.bu.edu/bfraser/
  29. (1999) What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics31: 931-952. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) Towards a theory of discourse markers. people.bu.edu/bfraser/
  31. García, F.G
    (2007) That’s a construction for you/las construccionnes es lo que tiene(n): Grammatica- lization via subjectification in attributive clauses in English and Spanish. Journal of English Studies7: 65-99.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gundel, J.K. , N. Hedberg , and R. Zacharski
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274-307. doi: 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldberg, A
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1987) Spoken and written modes of meaning. In R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 55-82.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hedberg, N.A
    (2000) The referential status of clefts. Language76: 891–920. doi: 10.2307/417203
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417203 [Google Scholar]
  36. Heggie, L.A
    (1998) The syntax of copular structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
  37. Holmes, J. , B. Vine , and B.G. Johnson
    (1998) Guide to the Wellington corpus of spoken New Zealand English. Wellington, New Zealand: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies: Victoria University of Wellington.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hopper, P. , and S.A. Thompson
    (2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 99-123. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  39. Horn, L
    (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Huddleston, R
    (1984) Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165785
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165785 [Google Scholar]
  41. Huddleston, R. , and G. Pullum
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hunston, S
    (2006) Phraseology and system: A contribution to the debate. In G. Thompson and S. Hunston (eds.), System and corpus. 55-80. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Koops, C
    (2007) Constraints on inferential constructions. In G. Radden , K.M. Kopcke , T. Berg , and P. Siemund (eds.), Aspects of meaning construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 207-224. doi: 10.1075/z.136.14koo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.14koo [Google Scholar]
  44. Laury, R
    (2006) On subordination, Finnish-style: Questioning the category of finite clausal complements in spoken Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics 19: 310–321.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lambrecht, K
    (2001) A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics39: 463–516. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021 [Google Scholar]
  46. Langacker, R
    (1974) Movement rules in a functional perspective. Language50: 630–664. doi: 10.2307/412239
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412239 [Google Scholar]
  47. Levinson, S
    (2001) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lindemann, S. , and A. Mauranen
    (2001) “It’s just real messy”: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Special Purposes 20: 459-475. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00026‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00026-6 [Google Scholar]
  49. López-Couso, M. and B. Méndez-Naya
    (in press) On the use of as if, as though, and like in present-day English complementation structures. Journal of English Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. McCawley, J.D
    (1988) The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Miller, J. , and R. Weinert
    (1998/2009) Spontaneous spoken language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pawley, A. , and F.H. Syder
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 191-225.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Pusch, C
    (2006) Marqueurs discursifs et subordination syntaxique: La construction inférentielle en français et dans d'autres langues romanes. In M. Drescher and B. Frank-Job (eds.), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues Romanes: Approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp.173-188.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. . (forthcoming) Pragmatic markers involving subordination in Romance: Do they structure discourse or comment on it?
  55. Quirk, R. , S. Greenbaum , G. Leech , and J. Svartvik
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Romaine, S. , and D. Lange
    (1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech66: 227-279. doi: 10.2307/455799
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rooryck, J
    (2000) Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sag, Ivan A
    (2010) Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 39-160. lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/theo-syno.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Schmid, H-J
    (2009) Rare but contextually entrenched: The English not-that construction. Paper presented atthe International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English , University of London, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sperber, D. , and D. Wilson
    (1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Stirling, L
    (1999) Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In P. Collins and D. Lee (eds.), The clause in English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.273-294. doi: 10.1075/slcs.45.18sti
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.45.18sti [Google Scholar]
  62. Taylor, J.R. , and K.Y. Pang
    (2008) Seeing as though. English Language and Linguistics 12: 103-139. doi: 10.1017/S1360674307002511
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002511 [Google Scholar]
  63. Thompson, S.A
    (2002) “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26: 125-164. doi: 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  64. Vallaurí, E.L
    (2004) Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics17: 189–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wray, A
    (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Zemskaja, E
    (1973) Russkaj razgovornaja reč’. Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
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