Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 21:3 (2011) ► pp.307–340

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

Inferentials in spoken English

Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2011
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.02cal
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 it-cleft (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, as if and like 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.
References (67)
Aijmer, K. (2002) English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Studies in corpus linguistics 10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, J.L. (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M. (2010) How to distinguish individual speakers: A corpus-based investigation of idiolects. Manuscript.
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2004) Discourse markers. In L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 221-240.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blass, R. (1990) Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 55, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calude, A. (2009a) Cleft constructions in spoken English. Berlin: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (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.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
Calude, A., and S. Miller (2009) Are clefts contagious in conversation? English Language and Linguistics. 131: 127-132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, P. (1991) Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., and E. Sweetser (2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1988) Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Foris: Leuven. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1992) The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua 871: 203-230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delahunty, G. (1990) Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 151: 1-28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 391: 517-545.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delahunty, G., and L. Gatzkiewicz (2000) On the Spanish inferential construction ser que . Pragmatics 101: 301-322.  BoP Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Doherty, M. (2001) Discourse functions and language-specific conditions for the use of cleft{-like} sentences: A prelude. Linguistics39.3: 457-362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
Fraser, B. (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 383-395.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1996) Pragmatic markers. [URL]  BoP.
. (1999) What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311: 931-952.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2005) Towards a theory of discourse markers. [URL]
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 Studies 71: 65-99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K., N. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691: 274-307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedberg, N.A. (2000) The referential status of clefts. Language 761: 891–920. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heggie, L.A. (1998) The syntax of copular structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1984) Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., and G. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laury, R. (2006) On subordination, Finnish-style: Questioning the category of finite clausal complements in spoken Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics 191: 310–321.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2001) A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 391: 463–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1974) Movement rules in a functional perspective. Language 501: 630–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2001) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 201: 459-475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
McCawley, J.D. (1988) The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, J., and R. Weinert (1998/2009) Spontaneous spoken language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. (forthcoming) Pragmatic markers involving subordination in Romance: Do they structure discourse or comment on it?
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Speech 661: 227-279.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. (2000) Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H-J. (2009) Rare but contextually entrenched: The English not-that construction. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English , University of London, UK.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson (1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R., and K.Y. Pang (2008) Seeing as though. English Language and Linguistics 121: 103-139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vallaurí, E.L. (2004) Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 171: 189–215.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zemskaja, E. (1973) Russkaj razgovornaja reč’. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Delahunty, Gerald P.
2022. An analysis ofThe thing is that Ssentences. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue