Cover not available

Article published In: La Référence Floue
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Frédéric Landragin
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 47:2] 2024
► pp. 349–371

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

‘The point is, what is the point?’

Vague reference with the the-N-is construction and its interactional functions in spoken English

 | ALTER (UR 7504), Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour
Published online: 24 January 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00117.ber
Abstract
This paper investigates vague cataphoric reference with shell nouns in the the-N-is construction (e.g. the point is). 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.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Shell nouns and their referencing potential
  • 2.The the-N-is construction: From specification to focalisation and projection
    • 2.1The the-N-is construction and specification
    • 2.2The the-N-is construction as a focus marker
    • 2.3The the-N-is construction as a projection
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Vague reference with shell nouns in the the-N-is construction: What contextual features?
  • 5.The interactional functions of vague cataphoric reference with shell nouns
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (38)
References
Abbot, B. (2010). Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adler, S. & Legallois, D. (2018). Les noms sous-spécifiés dans le débat parlementaire : analyse fréquentielle et catégorisation modale. Langue francaise, 1981, 19–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2007). The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that. In A. Celle & R. Huart (Eds), Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. (1970). Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Auer, P. (2009). Projection and Minimalistic Syntax in Interaction. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 180–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
(2021b). The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that…: de la modalité au positionnement énonciatif dans les structures projectives. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1988) Studies on copular sentences, clefts, and pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Delahunty, G. (2011). Contextually Determined Fixity and Flexibility in “Thing” Sentence Matrixes. Yearbook of Phraseology, 2(1), 109–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). An Analysis of The Thing Is That Sentences. Pragmatics, 22(1), 41–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2006). Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 345–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Use of signalling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 36–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Forest, R. W. (2015). Signalling Nouns in English: A Corpus-Based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, G. (1994). Labelling Discourse: An Aspect of Nominal-Group Lexical Cohesion. In Coulthard, M. (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 97–115. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds), Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 241, 11–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, A. (2002). So…?: Pragmatic Implications of So-Prefaced Questions in Formal Police Interviews. In J. Cotterill (Ed), Language in the Legal Process, 91-110. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, M. (2022). N-is Focalizers as Semi-fixed Constructions: Modeling Variation across World Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics, 50(2), 115–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive Nouns: Interaction and Cohesion in Abstract Moves. English for Specific Purposes, 451, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnsen, L. A. (2019). La sous-détermination référentielle et les désignateurs vagues en français contemporain. Berlin: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2013). The X Is (Is) Construction: An FDG account. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & H. Olbertz (Eds), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar, 213–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The (the) Fact Is (That) Construction in English and Dutch: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. In G. Kaltenböck et al. (Eds), Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 59–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kolhatkar, V. & Hirst, G. (2014). Resolving shell nouns. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2014), 499–510. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mantlik, A. & Schmid, H.-J. (2018). That-complementizer omission in N+BE+that-clauses — register variation or constructional change? In A. Ho-Cheong Leun & W. van der Wurdd (Eds), The noun phrase in English: past and present, 187–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Massam, D. (1999). Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics, 31, 335–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: from corpus to cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). ‘Presupposition Can Be a Bluff’: How Abstract Nouns Can Be Used as Presupposition Triggers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(10), 1529–1552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tåqvist, M. (2016). “Another Thing”: Discourse-Organising Nouns in Advanced Learner English. PhD Thesis, Karlstads Universitet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1996). The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is Why? In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, 713–752. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue