Cover not available

In:Corpora and the Changing Society: Studies in the evolution of English
Edited by Paula Rautionaho, Arja Nurmi and Juhani Klemola
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 96] 2020
► pp. 251–276

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

The development and pragmatic function of a non-inference marker

That is not to say (that)

 | University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Published online: 8 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.96.10bri
Abstract
That is not to say (that) is an introductory clause refuting an inference that could be drawn from the previous discourse; it often occurs in a negative context (with a positive reading) and is characteristic of written genres, with lowest frequency in fiction. The earliest examples date from the 16th century but the next examples found date from the mid- to late-19th century. The gap in the corpus data may be explained by the predominantly fiction/drama make-up of available corpora. The development of that is not to say (that) is not an entirely prototypical case of grammaticalization as certain parameters (loss of that, contracted forms) are inconclusive and there are no ‘lexical’ uses of the form and hence no ‘divergence’.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Form and function of that is not to say in Present-day English
    • 2.1Distribution of that is not to say
    • 2.2Synchronic status
      • 2.2.1Discourse-pragmatic function
      • 2.2.2Presence or absence of that
  • 3.Historical development of that is not to say
    • 3.1Dating of the construction
    • 3.2Formal features of the historical construction
    • 3.3Explaining the gaps in the data
    • 3.4Grammaticalization of that is not to say
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (55)
References
Corpora and text collections
ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. Version 3.2. 1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013/2016. Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. <[URL]>
BYU-BNC = Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). <[URL]>
A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. 2006. Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University). <[URL]>
CEN = The Corpus of English Novels. De Smit, Hendrik (comp.). <[URL]>
CLMET3.0 = The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. De Smet, Hendrik, Diller, Hans-Jürgen & Tyrkkö, Jukka (comps). <[URL]>
COCA = Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–2015. <[URL]>
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. <[URL]>
Early English Prose Fiction. 1997–2015. Ed. by Holger Klein et al. Chadwyck-Healey. ProQuest LLC. <[URL]>
ECCO-TCP = Eighteenth Century Collections Online <[URL]>
EEBO = Davies, Mark. 2017. Early English Books Online. Part of the SAMUELS project. <[URL]>
Eighteenth-century Fiction (1700–1780). 1996–2015. Chadwyck-Healey (ProQuest Company). <[URL]>
Evans-TCP = Evans Early American Imprints. <[URL]>
G&M = Globe and Mail 1844–present. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. <[URL]>
Google Books. <[URL]>
Hansard = Alexander, Marc & Davies, Mark. 2015–. British Parliament – Hansard 1803–2005. Part of the SAMUELS project. <[URL]>
The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts. 1998. Compiled by Josef Schmied, Claudia Claridge & Rainer Siemund (University of Chemnitz). <[URL]>
OB = The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674–1913. Hitchcock, Tim, Shoemaker, Robert, Emsley, Clive, Howard, Sharon & McLaughlin, Jamie et al. (eds). <[URL]> version 7.0, March 2012.
TIME = Davies, Mark. 2007–. TIME Magazine Corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. <[URL]>
Other references
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3): 569–606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briscoe, Ted. 2000. Interview of Gerald Gazdar. On Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. 3 November 2000, Cambridge, UK <[URL]> (1 May 2018).
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(2): 175–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward & Biber, Douglas. 1995. That and zero complementisers in Late Modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. The Verb in Contemporary English, Bas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (eds), 241–257. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Google Books Ngram Viewer. <[URL]>. See Michel et al. 2011.
Goldberg, Adele E. & van der Auwera, Johan. 2012. This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica Historica 46(1): 109–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed.), 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2011. Explaining diverging evidence: The case of clause-initial I think. In Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research [Human Cognitive Processing 33], Doris Schönefeld (ed.), 81–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 475–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi & Rissanen, Matti. 2002. We give you to wit: Semantics and grammaticalisation of the verb wit in the history of English. In Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Matti Rissanen (eds), 13–32. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2012. This is not to say that I don’t think that it isn’t illogical. Language Log, 3 November 2012, <[URL]> (10 September 2018).
López-Couso, María José. 2007. Auxiliary and negative cliticisation in Late Modern English. In ‘Of varying language and opposing creeds’: New Insights into Late Modern English, Javier Pérez-Guerra, Dolores González-Álvarez & Jorge L. Bueno Alonso (eds), 301–323. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. <[URL]> (10 September 2018).
Macmillan Dictionary. <[URL]> (10 September 2018).
MED = Middle English Dictionary. 1952–2001. Hans Kurath et al. (eds). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. <[URL]> (10 September 2018).
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Presser Aiden, Aviva, Veres, Adrian, Gray, Matthew K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, Joseph P., Hoiberg, Dale, Clancy, Dan, Norvig, Peter, Orwant, Jon, Pinker, Steven, Nowak, Martin A., & Lieberman Aiden, Erez. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014), 176–182.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2000–. Michael Proffitt (ed.). 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP. <[URL]> (30 May 2019).
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1991. On the history of that/zero of object clause links in English. In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 272–289. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schilperood, Joost & Verhagen, Arie. 1998. Conceptual dependency and the clausal structure of discourse. In Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, Jean-Pierre König (ed.), 141–163. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James A. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that. Linguistics 47(1): 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2001. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psychological Aspects, [Human Cognitive Processing 8], Ted J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperood & Wilbert Spooren (eds), 337–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watt, Ian. 2001/1957. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue