Cover not available
Part of
Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents
Edited by Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer and Arne Lohmann
[Studies in Language Companion Series 178] 2016
► pp. 59–96

The (the) fact is (that) construction in English and Dutch

 | University of Vienna
This paper deals with a frequently used construction in English and Dutch which can be broadly described as the (DET) (adj) fact is (that) construction. Using authentic data, it starts by presenting a detailed discussion of the differences and similarities between the English and the Dutch constructions in both form and function. Subsequently, it is argued that the formal differences between the English and Dutch constructions can be explained in terms of differences in function. It is shown that there are significant correlations between the various formal and functional properties in the two languages, which are taken to suggest that they are developing in different ways, with the Dutch construction tending towards specialization and the English construction towards further generalization (or bleaching). Finally, a Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) analysis of constructions of this type is proposed reflecting their specific formal and functional properties. First, it is argued that the sequence (DET) fact is (that) is not to be regarded as a matrix clause, but rather as a semi-fixed pragmatic and/or discourse-organizational marker in extra-clausal position. Next, it will be shown that by exploiting the distinctive characteristics of FDG an insightful account can be provided of the interaction between the pragmatic, semantic, syntactic and phonological features of these constructions, demonstrating the non-arbitrary relationship between their function and their form. Finally, it is shown that analysis proposed can also be used to chart the different stages in the development of the construction in English and Dutch.
Published online: 3 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.03kei
References (48)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that. In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 161], Agnes Celle & Ruth Huart (eds), 31-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Dik & Siewierska, Anna. 2002. Adpositions, the lexicon and expression rules. In New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar, Ricardo Mairal Úson & Maria Jesus Pérez Quintero (eds), 125-177. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1987. The remarkable double IS. English Today 9(1): 39-40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates. Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3): 569-606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Liselotte. 2011. Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Liselotte & Davidse, Kristin. 2010. The grammaticalisation of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change. English Studies 91(2): 180-202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brenier, Jason M. & Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 45-88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Esther N. Goody (ed.), 6-311. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 63-64]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald, & McCarthy, Michael. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2010. Introduction. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Hubert Cuyckens & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds), 1-26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudoclefts. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics 42(2): 287–294.Google Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P. 2012. An analysis of The thing is that S sentences. Pragmatics 21(1): 41-78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part II: The Structure of the Clause. 2nd, revised edn, Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John & Forest, Richard. 2015. Signalling Nouns in English A Corpus-based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Hasan, Ruquia. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2000. Verplichte topicalisatie van kale enkelvouden: De feit is dat-constructie. TABU 30: 113-142.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop & van der Horst, Kees. 1999. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de Twintigste eeuw. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2011. Explaining diverting evidence. The case of clause-initial I think . In Converging Evidence and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research [Human Cognitive Processing 33], Doris Schönefeld (ed.), 81-112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 1992. Reference, Predication and (In)definiteness in Functional Grammar. A Functional Approach to English Copular Sentences. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
. 2007. The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The X is (is) construction: An FDG account. In Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 137], J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Hella Olbertz (eds), 213-248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English [Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. In preparation. The use of modifiers in the English and Dutch fact-is constructions.
Kroon, Caroline. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin [Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 4]. Amsterdam: Gieben.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1999. Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics 3(2): 335-352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1988. To be or double be? Current changes in the English copula. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 287-305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim & Weinert, Regina. 1998. Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Michael & Haley, Michael C. 2002. The reduplicative copula is is . American Speech 77(3): 305-312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Antony. 1991a. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3): 237-251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991b. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2, [Typological Studies in Language 19(2)], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313-329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompsom, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in language 26(1): 125-163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D. 1996. The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is Why? In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, Eugene H. Casad (ed.), 713-752. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1993. Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 82], Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.), 1-164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpora
BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus (1980s-1993). 2004. <[URL]>
COCA: The Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2012). 2008 <[URL]>
Het 38 miljoen woorden corpus (1996), Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie, LeidenGoogle Scholar
Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands (CGN), 1998-2003, version 2.0.1. (2009). Nederlandse Taalunie.
Het Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands (CHN), 1814-2013 (2014). Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie, Leiden.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Klumm, Matthias
2024. Peripheries and their internal structure: an empirical analysis of left- and right-peripheral sequences across written English discourse. Linguistics DOI logo
Hundt, Marianne
2022. Constructional variation and change in N-is focaliser constructions. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Hundt, Marianne
2022. N-isFocalizers as Semi-fixed Constructions: Modeling Variation across World Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics 50:2 ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Hundt, Marianne & Rahel Oppliger
2022. (The) fact is …/(Die) Tatsache ist …focaliser constructions in English and German are similar but subject to different constraints. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Keizer, Evelien
2022. Premodification in X-is constructions. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Keizer, Evelien & Lotte Sommerer
2022. Major trends in research on the English NP. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pinson, Mathilde
2022. The (inter)subjectification ofbottom linephrases. Lingvisticae Investigationes 45:2 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
Berthe, Florine
2021. « The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that… » : de la modalité au positionnement énonciatif dans les structures projectives. Anglophonia 32 DOI logo
Shibasaki, Reijirou
2018. From the inside to the outside of the sentence. In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 202], ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 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.