Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus LinguisticsVol. 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
References
Allan, K
1980 “Nouns and countability”. Language, 56 (3), 541–567. 
Bache, C. & Davidsen-Nielsen, N
1997 Mastering English: An Advanced Grammar for Non-native Speakers. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bergh, G
1997 “Vacuous extraposition from object in English”. Studia Neophilologica, 69 (1), 37–41.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, P
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.
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.
Fitriati, A
2006 “An analysis of sentences with nonreferential it
”. Journal of Language and Literature, 10 (1), 22–37.
Gómez-González, M.A
1997 “On subject it-extrapositions: Evidence from present-day English”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 10 (1), 95–107.
Goldberg, A.E
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gonzálvez-García, F. & Butler, B
Gries, S. Th
2007: online. Coll.analysis 3.2: a program for R for Windows 2.x. Available at [URL] (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.
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.
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.
Hoffmann, S. & Evert, S
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.
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G
(Eds.) 2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S
2011 Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London/New York: Routledge.
Kaltenböck, G
2002 “That’s it? On the unanticipated ‘controversy’ over anticipatory it: A reply to Aimo Seppänen”. English Studies, 83 (6), 541–550.
2003 “On the syntactic and semantic status of anticipatory it
”. English Language and Linguistics, 7 (2), 235–55.
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.
2006 “ ‘That is the question’: complementizer omission in extraposed that-clauses”. English Language and Linguistics, 10 (2), 371–396.
Keizer, E
2007 The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Lakoff, G
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, K
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Mair, C
1990 Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, P.H
2001 “Discourse constraints on (non)extraposition from subjects in English”. Linguistics, 39 (4), 683–701.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
R Core Team
2011: online. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available at: [URL] (accessed August 2011).
Rosenbaum, P.S
1967 The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
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.
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.
Seppänen, A
2002 “On analysing the pronoun IT
”. English Studies, 83 (5), 442–462.
Seppänen, A. & Herriman, J
2002 “Extraposed subjects vs. postverbal complements: On the so-called obligatory extraposition”. Studia Neophilologica, 74 (1), 30–59.
Seppänen, A., Granath, S. & Herriman, J
1995 “On so-called ‘formal’ subjects/objects and ‘real’ subjects/objects”. Studia Neophilologica, 67 (1), 11–19.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th
2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243.
The British National Corpus
, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available at: [URL] (accessed August 2011).
The Oxford English Dictionary
1989 A.J. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
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.