Inferentials in spoken English
Although there is a growing body of research on inferential sentences (Declerck 1992, Delahunty 1990, 1995, 2001, Koops 2007, Pusch 2006), most of this research has been on their forms and functions in written discourse. This has left a gap with regards to their range of structural properties and allowed disagreement over their analysis to linger without a conclusive resolution. Most accounts regard the inferential as a type of it-cleft (Declerck 1992, Delahunty 2001, Huddleston and Pullum 2002, Lambrecht 2001), while a few view it as an instance of extraposition (Collins 1991, Schmid 2009). More recently, Pusch’s work in Romance languages proposes the inferential is used as a discourse marker (2006, forthcoming). Based on a corpus study of examples from spoken New Zealand English, the current paper provides a detailed analysis of the formal and discoursal properties of several sub-types of inferentials (positive, negative, as if and like inferentials). We show that despite their apparent formal differences from the prototypical cleft, inferentials are nevertheless best analysed as a type of cleft, though this requires a minor reinterpretation of “cleft construction.” We show how similar the contextualized interpretations of clefts and inferentials are and how these are a function of their lexis and syntax.
Keywords: Inferential, New Zealand English, Spoken language, It-cleft, Just, Discourse, US English, Discourse markers, Like, (not) as if, Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English
References
Austin, J.L
(
1962)
How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
Barlow, M
(
2010)
How to distinguish individual speakers: A corpus-based investigation of idiolects. Manuscript.
Bearth, T
(
1997)
Inferential and counter-inferential grammatical markers in Swahili dialogue. In
E.M. Beck,
T. Geider,
W. Graebner, and
I. Heine (eds.),
Swahili forum. Cologne: Universität zu Köln.
Bender, E., and D. Flickinger
(
1999)
Diachronic evidence for extended argument structure. In
G. Bouma,
E.W. Hinrichs,
G.M. Kruijff, and
R. Oehrle (eds.),
Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics. G. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 1-19.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan
(
1999)
Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Longman.
Blakemore, D
(
2002)
Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
BoP
Blakemore, D
(
2004)
Discourse markers. In
L.R. Horn and
G. Ward (eds.),
The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 221-240.
Blass, R
(
1990)
Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 55, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
BoP
Calude, A
(
2009a)
Cleft constructions in spoken English. Berlin: VDM Verlag.
Calude, A., and G. Delahunty
(
2010)
Inferentials: Fixed or not? Paper presented at
The international conference on fixed phrases in English
. October 22-24, University of Perpignan, Via Domitia.
Calude, A., and S. Miller
(
2009)
Are clefts contagious in conversation? English Language and Linguistics. 131: 127-132.
Collins, P
(
1991)
Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.
BoP
Dancygier, B., and E. Sweetser
(
2005)
Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerck, R
(
1988)
Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Foris: Leuven.
Declerck, R
(
1992)
The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners.
Lingua 871: 203-230.
Delahunty, G
(
1990)
Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential.
Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 151: 1-28.
Delahunty, G
(
2001)
Discourse functions of inferential sentences.
Linguistics 391: 517-545.
BoP
Delahunty, G., and L. Gatzkiewicz
Dirven, R
(
1989)
A cognitive perspective on complementation. In
D. Jaspers,
Y. Putseys,
W. Klooster and
P. Seuren (eds.),
Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 113-139.
Doherty, M
(
2001)
Discourse functions and language-specific conditions for the use of cleft{-like} sentences: A prelude.
Linguistics39.3: 457-362.
Edmonds, A
(
2010)
On the representation of conventional expressions in L1-English and L2-French. Ph.D. dissertation, Departments of French and Italian and Linguistics, Indiana University.
Fraser, B
(
1990)
An approach to discourse markers.
Journal of Pragmatics 141: 383-395.
BoP
Fraser, B
(
1999)
What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311: 931-952.
BoP
Fraser, B
(
2005)
Towards a theory of discourse markers.
[URL]
García, F.G
(
2007)
That’s a construction for you/las construccionnes es lo que tiene(n): Grammatica- lization via subjectification in attributive clauses in English and Spanish.
Journal of English Studies 71: 65-99.
Gundel, J.K., N. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski
(
1993)
Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse.
Language 691: 274-307.
Goldberg, A
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BoP
Halliday, M.A.K
(
1987)
Spoken and written modes of meaning. In
R. Horowitz and
S.J. Samuels (eds.),
Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 55-82.
Hedberg, N.A
(
2000)
The referential status of clefts.
Language 761: 891–920.
Heggie, L.A
(
1998)
The syntax of copular structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Holmes, J., B. Vine, and B.G. Johnson
(
1998)
Guide to the Wellington corpus of spoken New Zealand English. Wellington, New Zealand: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies: Victoria University of Wellington.
Hopper, P., and S.A. Thompson
Horn, L
(
1989)
A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
BoP
Huddleston, R
(
1984)
Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R., and G. Pullum
(
2002)
The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S
(
2006)
Phraseology and system: A contribution to the debate. In
G. Thompson and
S. Hunston (eds.),
System and corpus. 55-80. London: Equinox.
Laury, R
(
2006)
On subordination, Finnish-style: Questioning the category of finite clausal complements in spoken Finnish.
SKY Journal of Linguistics 191: 310–321.
Lambrecht, K
(
2001)
A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions.
Linguistics 391: 463–516.
Langacker, R
(
1974)
Movement rules in a functional perspective.
Language 501: 630–664.
Levinson, S
(
2001)
Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lindemann, S., and A. Mauranen
(
2001)
“It’s just real messy”: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech.
English for Special Purposes 201: 459-475.
López-Couso, M. and B. Méndez-Naya
in press)
On the use of as if, as though, and like in present-day English complementation structures.
Journal of English Studies.
McCawley, J.D
(
1988)
The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Miller, J., and R. Weinert
(
1998/2009)
Spontaneous spoken language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BoP
Pawley, A., and F.H. Syder
(
1983)
Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In
Jack C. Richards and
Richard W. Schmidt (eds.),
Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 191-225.
Pusch, C
(
2006)
Marqueurs discursifs et subordination syntaxique: La construction inférentielle en français et dans d'autres langues romanes. In
M. Drescher and
B. Frank-Job (eds.),
Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues Romanes: Approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 173-188.
Pusch, C
forthcoming)
Pragmatic markers involving subordination in Romance: Do they structure discourse or comment on it?
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik
(
1985)
A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.
BoP
Romaine, S., and D. Lange
(
1991)
The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress.
American Speech 661: 227-279.
BoP
Rooryck, J
(
2000)
Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London: Routledge.
Sag, Ivan A
(
2010)
Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In
Hans C. Boas and
Ivan A. Sag (eds.),
Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 39-160.
[URL]
Schmid, H-J
(
2009)
Rare but contextually entrenched: The English not-that construction. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English
, University of London, UK.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson
(
1986/1995)
Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing.
BoP
Taylor, J.R., and K.Y. Pang
(
2008)
Seeing as though.
English Language and Linguistics 121: 103-139.
Vallaurí, E.L
(
2004)
Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages.
SKY Journal of Linguistics 171: 189–215.
Wray, A
(
2002)
Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BoP
Wray, A
(
2008)
Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zemskaja, E
(
1973)
Russkaj razgovornaja reč’. Moscow: Nauka.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.