Article published In:
La phraséologie dans les interactions orales et écrites
Edited by Gaétane Dostie and Agnès Tutin
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 45:2] 2022
► pp. 276295
References
Aijmer, K.
2007The interface between discourse and grammar: the fact is that . In A. Celle & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks, 31–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B.
1998On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Anthony. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications, 101–122. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. & Detges, U.
2014Introduction. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.
1996Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008The Comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curzan, A.
2012Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds). The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 211–221. Oxford: Oxford Uinversity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
2008–The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019. Available online at [URL]
2010– The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. Available online at [URL]
Degand, L. & Fagard, B.
2011 Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18 (1), 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G.
2011Contextually determined fixity and flexibility in thing sentence matrixes.’ Yearbook of Phraseology, 2 1, 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012An analysis of the thing is that sentences, Pragmatics, 22 (1). 41–78.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.
2002Stance and consequence. Paper presented at Annual meetings of the American anthropological association , New Orleans, LA, November 20–24.
Erman, B. & Warren, B.
2000The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20 1, 29–62.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N.
1995Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
1996Pragmatic Marker. Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167–182.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haselow, A.
2015Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: the case of anyway . In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.
2015 Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88 1, 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2013Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. A.
2008Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In L. Ritva (Ed.). Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M.
2022aConstructional variation and change in N-is focaliser constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Keizer (Eds.). English noun phrases from a functional-cognitive perspective: Current issues, 206–233. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022bN-is Focalizers as semi-fixed constructions: modeling variation across World Englishes, Journal of English Linguistics, 115–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E.
2013The X Is (Is) Construction. In J. L. Mackenzie & H. Olbertz (Eds.). Casebook in functional discourse grammar, 213–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016The (the) Fact is (that) Construction in English and Dutch. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer & A. Lohmann (Eds.). Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 59–96. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, U.
2010Argument and rhetoric: adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mantlik, A. & Schmid, H.-J.
2018 That-complementiser omission in N + be + that-clauses. In A. Ho-Cheong Leung & W. van der Wurff (Eds.). The noun phrase in English: Past and present, 187–222. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mautner, G.
2010Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & Weinert, R.
1998Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mulder, J. & Thompson, S. A.
2008The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In L. Ritva (Ed.). Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Oxford English dictionary
Online edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinson, M.
forthcoming. From the financial to the metatextual: the emergence of discursive bottom line . In C. Petraş Ed. Metalinguistic Markers: Emergence, Discourse, Variation
Ross-Hagebaum, S.
2005The that’s X is Y construction as an information-structure amalgam. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 30 1, 403–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
2000English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001Presupposition can be a bluff: How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 1, 1529–1552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Shell nouns in English – a personal roundup. Caplletra, 64 1, 109–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020How the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model might enrich diachronic construction grammar: The case of (the) thing is (that). In T. Colleman, F. Brisard, A. De Wit, R. Enghels, N. Koutsoukos, T. Mortelmans & M. S. Sansiñena. The wealth and breadth of construction-based research, 306–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, R.
2014aOn the development of the point is and related issues in the history of American English. English Linguistics, 31 (1), 79–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014bOn the grammaticalization of the thing is and related issues in the history of American English. In M. Adams, R. D. Fulk & L. Brinton (Eds.). Studies in the history of English language VI 1, 99–121. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2018Sequentiality and the emergence of new constructions: That’s the bottom line is (that) in American English. In H. Cuyckens, H. de Smet, L. Heyvaert & C. Maekelberghe (Eds.). Explorations in English historical syntax, 283–306. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.
2010(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014On the function of the epistemic adverbs surely and no doubt at the left and right peripheries of the clause. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 72–91. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2018Rethinking the role of invited inferencing in change from the perspective of interactional texts. Open Linguistics, 4 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. & Dasher, R.
2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. & Trousdale, G.
2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, H.
2016The (X) thing is: From a matrix clause to a discourse marker. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 555–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
2008Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar