Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 19:4 (2014) ► pp. 505–529

The have-it-that construction

A corpus-based analysis

Speakers do not always attribute agency straightforwardly when they communicate. While complying with the maxims of explicitness and relevance, they may depict states of affairs headed by an identifiable source. More often than not, however, it seems they leave out this source for a number of reasons and through different mechanisms. This paper is a corpus-based study of one such non-identifying structures, namely the extrapositional have-it-that construction, in examples such as Several hypotheses have it that land-use changes. Drawing on data from the BNC, this paper investigates the use, distribution and functioning of the have-it-that construction. The paper also highlights the usefulness of simple collexeme analysis in revealing systematic co-selection relationships within the construction.
Keywords: construction, evaluation, extraposition, collexeme analysis
Published online: 25 October 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.4.03gom
References
Allan, K
1980 “Nouns and countability”. Language, 56 (3), 541–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bache, C. & Davidsen-Nielsen, N
1997 Mastering English: An Advanced Grammar for Non-native Speakers. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, G
1997 “Vacuous extraposition from object in English”. Studia Neophilologica, 69 (1), 37–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P
1994 “Extraposition in English”. Functions of Language, 1 (1), 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Esser, J
2002 “Sampling and categorizing fronted constructions in the BNC”. In A. Fischer, G. Tottie & H.M. Lehmann (Eds.), Text Types and Corpora: Studies in Honor of Udo Fries. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 131–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M
1988 “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone ”. Language, 64 (3), 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitriati, A
2006 “An analysis of sentences with nonreferential it ”. Journal of Language and Literature, 10 (1), 22–37.Google Scholar
Gómez-González, M.A
1997 “On subject it-extrapositions: Evidence from present-day English”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 10 (1), 95–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. & Butler, B
2006 “Mapping functional-cognitive space”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 39–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th
2007: online. Coll.analysis 3.2: a program for R for Windows 2.x. Available at http://​www​.linguistics​.ucsb​.edu​/faculty​/stgries​/teaching​/groningen​/coll​.analysis​.r (accessed August 2011).
Halliday, M.A.K
1994 “Systemic theory”. In R. Asher & J. Simpson (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 4505–4508.Google Scholar
Herriman, J
2000 “Extraposition in English: A study of the interaction between the matrix predicate and the type of extraposed clause”. English Studies, 81 (6), 582–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M. & Hewings, A
2002 “ ‘It is interesting to note that…’: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing”. English for Specific Purposes, 21 (4), 367–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S. & Evert, S
2002: online. BNCweb (CQP edition). Version 4.2. Available at: http://​www​.bncweb​.info (accessed August 2011).
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D.Y.W. & Prytz, Y.B
2008 Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb: A Practical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G
(Eds.) 2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S
2011 Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G
2002 “That’s it? On the unanticipated ‘controversy’ over anticipatory it: A reply to Aimo Seppänen”. English Studies, 83 (6), 541–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “On the syntactic and semantic status of anticipatory it ”. English Language and Linguistics, 7 (2), 235–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Using non-extraposition in spoken and written texts: A functional perspective”. In K. Aijmer & A.B. Sternström (Eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “ ‘That is the question’: complementizer omission in extraposed that-clauses”. English Language and Linguistics, 10 (2), 371–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E
2007 The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J
2005 “Subject extraposition and object extraposition in English: Corpus findings and a constraint-based approach”. Studies in Generative Grammar, 15 (2), 145–164.Google Scholar
Kim, J. & Sag, I.A
2005 “English object extraposition: A constraint-based approach”. In S. Mueller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference, University of Lisbon. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 192–212.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C
1971 “Fact”. In D.D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 345–369.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R.J
1995 “Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese”. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 297–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.Y.W
2001 “Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle”. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (3), 37–72.Google Scholar
Mair, C
1990 Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, P.H
2001 “Discourse constraints on (non)extraposition from subjects in English”. Linguistics, 39 (4), 683–701. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2011: online. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://​www​.R​-project​.org (accessed August 2011).
Rosenbaum, P.S
1967 The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Mairal, R
2008 “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42 (2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Sansò, A
2006 “ ‘Agent defocusing’ revisited: Passive and impersonal constructions in some European languages”. In W. Abraham & L. Leisiö (Eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, A
2002 “On analysing the pronoun IT ”. English Studies, 83 (5), 442–462. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, A. & Herriman, J
2002 “Extraposed subjects vs. postverbal complements: On the so-called obligatory extraposition”. Studia Neophilologica, 74 (1), 30–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, A., Granath, S. & Herriman, J
1995 “On so-called ‘formal’ subjects/objects and ‘real’ subjects/objects”. Studia Neophilologica, 67 (1), 11–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th
2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The British National Corpus
, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available at: http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/ (accessed August 2011).
The Oxford English Dictionary
1989 A.J. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th
2007 “Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety–specific meaning construction in the into-causative”. In G. Radden, K.M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar