Cover not available
Article In:
La Référence Floue
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Frédéric Landragin
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 47:2] 2024
► pp. 324–346

‘The point is, what is the point?’

Vague reference with the the-N-is construction and its interactional functions in spoken English

 | ALTER (UR 7504), Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour
This paper investigates vague cataphoric reference with shell nouns in the the-N-is construction (e.g. the point is). It highlights the ties between the construction, which is sometimes analysed as a specfticational copular sentence, shell nouns, which function to some extent like pronouns, and reference. Using a corpus of spoken British English, it shows that referent identification is however not always achieved with this construction and puts forward several contextual that contribute to the vague reference for the shell noun, such as the form and complexity of the shell content or the larger context. The article finally offers interactional perspectives and shows that speakers can use the construction with its vague cataphoric potential as turn-taking or floor-holding device.
Keywords: shell nouns, cataphoric reference, vague reference, the the-N-is construction, interaction
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Shell nouns and their referencing potential
  • 2.The the-N-is construction: From specification to focalisation and projection
    • 2.1The the-N-is construction and specification
    • 2.2The the-N-is construction as a focus marker
    • 2.3The the-N-is construction as a projection
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Vague reference with shell nouns in the the-N-is construction: What contextual features?
  • 5.The interactional functions of vague cataphoric reference with shell nouns
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (34)
References
Abbot, B. (2010). Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, S. (2018). Sémantique des noms généraux sous-spécifiés et construction du sens. Langages, 2101, 71–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adler, S. & Legallois, D. (2018). Les noms sous-spécifiés dans le débat parlementaire : analyse fréquentielle et catégorisation modale. Langue francaise, 1981, 19–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2007). The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that . In A. Celle & R. Huart (Eds), Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, A. (1970). Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Auer, P. (2009). Projection and Minimalistic Syntax in Interaction. Discourse Processes, 46 (2–3), 180–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthe, F. (2021a). De la clivée en thà la structure the-N-is en anglais oral: Vers une lecture discursive, prosodique et dialogique. PhD thesis, Université de Lorraine et Université d’Augsburg.
(2021b). The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that…: de la modalité au positionnement énonciatif dans les structures projectives. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 32 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). From the pseudo-cleft to the the-N-is construction in spoken English: The birth of a new paradigm. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 33 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17(3), 301–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E., Brenier, J., Staum, L. & Michaelis, L. (2006). The thing is, is Is No Mere Disfluency. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32 (1), 85–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L. (2017). Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French: variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus linguistics, 22 (2), 242–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G. (2011). Contextually Determined Fixity and Flexibility in “Thing” Sentence Matrixes. Yearbook of Phraseology, 2 (1), 109–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). An Analysis of The Thing Is That Sentences. Pragmatics, 22 (1), 41–78.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2006). Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11 (3), 345–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Use of signalling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 36–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Forest, R. W. (2015). Signalling Nouns in English: A Corpus-Based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, G. (1994). Labelling Discourse: An Aspect of Nominal-Group Lexical Cohesion. In Coulthard, M. (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 97–115. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011). N Be That-Constructions in Everyday German Conversation: A Reanalysis of Die Sache Ist/Das Ding Ist (‘the Thing Is’)-Clauses as Projector Phrases. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds), Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 241, 11–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. (2022). N-is Focalizers as Semi-fixed Constructions: Modeling Variation across World Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics, 50 (2), 115–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive Nouns: Interaction and Cohesion in Abstract Moves. English for Specific Purposes, 45 1, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, L. A. (2019). La sous-détermination référentielle et les désignateurs vagues en français contemporain. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jollin-Bertocchi, S. (2023). Vers une approche phraséologique de la cataphore’. Langue française, 2171, 81–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E. (2013). The X Is (Is) Construction: An FDG account. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & H. Olbertz (Eds), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar, 213–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The (the) Fact Is (That) Construction in English and Dutch: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. In G. Kaltenböck et al. (Eds), Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 59–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolhatkar, V. & Hirst, G. (2014). Resolving shell nouns. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2014), 499–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mantlik, A. & Schmid, H.-J. (2018). That-complementizer omission in N+BE+that-clauses — register variation or constructional change? In A. Ho-Cheong Leun & W. van der Wurdd (Eds), The noun phrase in English: past and present, 187–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. (1999). Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics, 3 1, 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: from corpus to cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). ‘Presupposition Can Be a Bluff’: How Abstract Nouns Can Be Used as Presupposition Triggers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (10), 1529–1552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1996). The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is Why? In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, 713–752. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar