Cover not available
Part of
Explorations in English Historical Syntax
Edited by Hubert Cuyckens, Hendrik De Smet, Liesbet Heyvaert and Charlotte Maekelberghe
[Studies in Language Companion Series 198] 2018
► pp. 283–306

Chapter 11
Sequentiality and the emergence of new constructions

That’s the bottom line is (that) in American English

| Meiji University
This study aims to investigate a specific construction in spoken discourse, i.e. that’s (not) the bottom line is (that) and its variant forms, in recent American English. The function of the bottom line is (that) is for a speaker to introduce or anticipate upcoming talk, while that’s the bottom line allows a speaker to summarize his/her preceding statement. These constructions give rise to a new construction when repeatedly used in the following sequence: anaphoric that’s (not) the bottom line followed by cataphoric the bottom line is (that). The newly emerging construction, i.e. that’s (not) the bottom line is (that), is an “apo-koinou” construction, which consists of two clauses which have a word or phrase in common. The remainder of the study then discusses how the notions of “constructional change”, “constructionalization”, and “constructional expansion” may be applied to the individual SN-constructions and to the resulting apo-koinou constructions.
Keywords: Sequentiality, SN-constructions, apo-koinou, constructionalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical and historical background
    • 2.1Shell noun constructions
    • 2.2A brief history of bottom line
  • 3.Survey results
    • 3.1The distributional patterns
    • 3.2Sequential use and the flow of information
    • 3.3The emergence of apo-koinou constructions – loss of the negative adverb not
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Apo-koinou constructions as a case of constructionalization
    • 4.2Constructional expansion
  • 5.Concluding remarks and further issues
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.198.12shi
References (56)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2002. Corpora and the double copula. In From the COLT’s mouth ….. and others’: Language corpora studies in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström, Leiv E. Breivik & Angela Hasselgren (eds), 43–58. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Blockley, Mary. 2001. Subordinate clause without ἀπὸ κοινοῦ in Old English verse, chiefly in Beowulf and chiefly nu and swa . Studia Neophilologica 73: 4–10.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1987. The remarkable double is . English Today 9: 39–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, Brenier, Jason, Staum, Laura & Michaelis, Laura. 2006. “The thing is, is” is no mere disfluency. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32: 85–96.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corminboeuf, Gilles. 2012. Des apo koinou aux constructions louches. In Le verbe en verve: Réflexions sur la syntaxe et la sémantique verbales, Marleen Van Peteghem, Peter Lauwers, Els Tobback, Annemie Demol & Laurence De Wilde (eds), 215–231. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2012. Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds), 211–221. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3): 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1): 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John & Forest, Richard W. 2014. Signalling Nouns in Academic English: A Corpus-based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 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 Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 24], Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The dynamics of dass-constructions in everyday German interactions – A dialogical perspective. In Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation, Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo & Jörg Bücker (eds), 179–206. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2004. Projection and grammar: Note on the “action-projecting use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 36(8): 317–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus-based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40(2):153–175.Google Scholar
2007. Linguistics and micro-rhetoric: A twenty-first century encounter. Journal of English Linguistics 35(2): 236–252 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds), 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining [Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed.), 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie & Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2014. ‘Pivotage’ in French talk-in-interaction: On the emergent nature of [clause-NP-clause] pivots. Pragmatics 24(3): 593–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part III: Syntax, Second Volume. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kellner, Leon. 1892. Historical Outlines of English Syntax. New York NY: Gordon Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, Betsy. 2014. Left dislocation in French. In Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 244], Stacey Katz Bourns & Lindsy L. Myers (eds.), 223–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 319–339.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th edn. 2012. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2009. Corpus linguistics meets sociolinguistics. In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 7–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1999. Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics 3(1): 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meritt, Herbert D. 1967. The Construction ἀπὸ κοινοῦ in the Germanic Languages. New York NY: AMS Press.Google Scholar
Miura, Ayumi. 2009. Juliana 329b-30a revisited: Apo koinou or not? Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature 24: 1–19.Google Scholar
Online etymology dictionary. <[URL]>
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 8th edn. 2010. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ross-Hagebaum, Sebastian. 2005. The that’s X is Y construction as an information-structure amalgam. Berkeley Linguistics Society 30: 403–414.DOI logoGoogle 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
Shibasaki, Reijirou. 2014a. On the development of the point is and related issues in the history of American English. English Linguistics 31(1): 79–113.Google Scholar
. 2014b. On the grammaticalization of the thing is and related issues in the history of American English. In Studies in the History of English Language VI, Michael Adams, Robert D. Fulk & Laurel J. Brinton (eds), 99–121. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Chiasmic constructions in Present-day English. Ms, Meiji University.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Gendai amerika eigo no nijuu kopyura koobun (Double copula constructions in Present-day American English). In Nichi-Eigo no Bunpooka to Koobunka (Grammaticalization and constructionalization in Japanese and English), Minoji Akimoto, Hirofumi Aoki & Mitsuru Maeda (eds), 147–180. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2014. Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. In Grammaticalization – Theory and Data [Studies in Language Companion Series 162], Sylvie Hancil & Ekkehard Köning (eds), 87–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1996. The thing is is that people talk that way: The question is Why? In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, Eugene H. Casad (ed.), 713–752. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ukaji, Masatomo. 2003. Subject zero relatives in Early Modern English. In Current Issues in English Linguistics, Masatomo Ukaji, Masayuki Ikeuchi & Yoshiki Nishimura (eds), 248–277. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus. Theodorus. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part one: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2009. Identifying formulaic language: Persistent challenges and new opportunities. In Formulaic Language, Vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change [Typological Studies in Language 82], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 27–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yaguchi, Michiko. 2010. The historical development of the phrase there’s: An analysis of the Oxford English Dictionary data. English Studies 91(2): 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshino, Yoshihiro. 1984. Poetic Syntax in the Old English “Meters of Boethius”: A Comparative Study of Verse and Prose. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Corpora
The British National Corpus (BYU-BNC), 100 mil. words. <[URL]>
The Corpus of Contemporary American English 1990–2012 (COCA), 450 mil. words. <[URL]>
The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), 1810–2000s, 400 mil. words. ([URL])
The Oxford English (OED), second edition on CD-ROM Version 4.0 , Oxford: OUP.
The Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBCSAE), c. 249,000 words, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara. <[URL]>
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Pinson, Mathilde
2022. The (inter)subjectification ofbottom linephrases. Lingvisticae Investigationes 45:2 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
Shibasaki, Reijirou
2021. Chapter 4. Reanalysis and the emergence of adverbial connectors in the history of Japanese. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 102 ff. DOI logo
Shibasaki, Reijirou
2023. Formulaicity and formulaic expressions in Japanese: an introduction. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 39:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.