An analysis of The thing is that S sentences
I refer to the sentences that are the subject of this paper as Thing sentences (TSs), illustrated by The thing is that it’s not my phone. These are copular specificational sentences with a definite singular subject and a finite complement clause. Prior research claimed that TSs focus attention on their complement clauses, are pragmatic or discourse markers, indicate a shift in subtopic or topic, communicate that the proposition represented by the complement clause is in “disconformity” with, or problematic in, its context, and that it represents a cause, reason, justification, or grounds for other propositions; these interpretations are claimed to be conventionally associated with the construction. I show that these earlier works are descriptively inaccurate and explanatorily incomplete. While the cause, reason, justification, and grounds interpretations have not been explained, some authors have claimed that the problem interpretation is due to the semantic poverty of thing. I demonstrate that the construction presents the complement proposition as both focused and presupposed and consequently as partially discontinuous with the discourse topic as it has developed up to the point at which the TS is uttered, thereby effecting a shift in the development of the current topic, though never a shift to an unrelated topic. I argue against analyzing TSs as discourse or pragmatic markers and I demonstrate that TSs need not communicate that their complements are problematic, that the range of other interpretations is greater than hitherto proposed, that these are due to the operation of general interpretive schemata, and therefore are not conventionally associated with the construction. I show that the presuppositional effects are due to the minimal semantic specification of thing and the fact that it is definite, and that the focusing effects are due to the predicate position of the clause and to the specificationality of the construction which makes the clause an argument of the subject and thus a marked focus. This analysis of Thing sentences demonstrates that speakers are attuned to the expectations of their audiences and exploit the lexical and syntactic resources of the language to create expression types to manage such things as topical development, and in the case of Thing sentences to signal an unexpected development of the current topic, leading to a change in its trajectory. The analysis shows that at this point in its history, TS interpretations are due to its linguistic features interacting in context with general pragmatic principles.
Keywords: Focusing, Definiteness, Compositionality, Thing, Specificational construction, Presupposition, Topic management, Topical change, Thing sentence
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 March 2012
Bar-Lev, Zev, and A. Palacas
(1980) Semantic command over pragmatic priority. Lingua 511: 137–146. BoP
Beyssade, C., and C. Dobrovie-Sorin
(2008) Copular sentences, lifetime effect, and identity. http://webs2002.uab.es/clt/activitats/Bare%20Singulars/BeyssadeDobrovieSorin.pdf (accessed 4 June 2011 ).
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan
(1989) Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but . Linguistics and Philosophy 121: 15–38. BoP
(1997) Restatement and exemplification: A relevance theoretic re-assessment of elaboration. Pragmatics and Cognition 5.1: 1–19. BoP
Brenier, Jason, and Laura A. Michaelis
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
Calude, Andreea S., and Gerald Delahunty
(2011) Inferentials in spoken English. International Journal of Pragmatics 21.3: 307–340. BoP
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. MetBib
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy
(1995) The inferential construction. International Journal of Pragmatics 5.3: 341–364. BoP
(2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39.3: 517–545. BoP
(2008) Thing sentences, markedness, topic, register, and mode. Paper presented at First North American Conference on Pragmatics (I NAWPRA), York University, Toronto.
(2009) Relevance theory, “loose talk,” and speaking/writing relations. Paper presented at 7th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities, Honolulu, HI.
(2011b) Loose talk and “loose thought”: Relevance theory, style and the indication of context. Presented at International Pragmatics Association Conference, Manchester, UK, July 2011.
Delahunty, Gerald, and Laura Gatzkiewicz
(2000) On the Spanish inferential construction Ser que . International Journal of Pragmatics 10.3: 301–322. BoP
Delahunty, Gerald, and Maura Velazquez-Castillo
(2005) Toward a theory of discourse markers. http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/ (accessed 4 June 2011 ).
Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman. BoP
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Lerner, Gene H.
(2004) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
Levinson, Stephen C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. BoP.
(1999) Definiteness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. BoP
(1988) To be or double be? Current changes in the English copula. Australian Journal of Linguistics 81: 287–305. BoP
Miller, Jim, and Regina Weinert
(1998) Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. BoP
(1978) A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 541: 883–906. BoP
(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.
(2007) Propositional pragmatic markers in Romance: Do they structure discourse or comment on it? Paper presented at International Pragmatics Association conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, July 12, 2007.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. MetBib
Terasaki, Alene Kiku
Cited by 10 other publications
Hsieh, Chen-Yu Chester
Hundt, Marianne & Rahel Oppliger
Keizer, Evelien & Lotte Sommerer
Liu, Qingrong & Liming Deng
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
Válková, Silvie & Jarmila Tárnyiková
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.