Cover not available
Article published In:
La phraséologie dans les interactions orales et écrites
Edited by Gaétane Dostie and Agnès Tutin
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 45:2] 2022
► pp. 276–295

The (inter)subjectification of bottom line phrases

 | Sorbonne Nouvelle University
Bottom line occurs in several phrases, including the [(the) N is] construction. Its constructionalization is more advanced than that of other nouns: it can now be used as a true discourse marker, in the left or in the right periphery. The data confirm the influence of position on pragmatic function. Cataphoric bottom line mainly fulfills discursive functions (summation, contradiction, sub-topic shift or topic-resumption), while anaphoric bottom line is an intersubjective expression that signals turn and topic closure and aims at pre-empting potential disalignment. However, the cataphoric discourse marker is also undergoing incipient intersubjectification. This is due to the deletion of the copula, which allows bottom line to have scope over the interlocutor’s discourse rather than simply over its host sentence.
Keywords: constructionalization, [the N is] construction, (inter)subjectification, left periphery, right periphery
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1. Bottom line phrases
    • 1.1Constructionalization of [(the) N is]
    • 1.2Specificities of the bottom line construction: from the left to the right periphery
    • 1.3Distribution of bottom line phrases in the corpus
  • 2.Cataphoric bottom line phrases
    • 2.1A marker of speaker stance
    • 2.2Left collocates of cataphoric bottom line and discursive functions
      • 2.2.1Summation
      • 2.2.2Contradiction
      • 2.2.3 (Sub)-topic shift and topic resumption
      • 2.2.4Hesitation
    • 2.3Cataphoric bottom line as a DM
    • 2.4Conclusion on cataphoric bottom line phrases
  • 3.Anaphoric bottom line phrases
    • 3.1Turn or topic closure
    • 3.2Forced alignment
    • 3.3RP bottom line in all sections of COCA
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00077.pin
References (50)
References
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: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Anthony. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications, 101–122. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. & Detges, U. 2014. Introduction. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The Comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curzan, A. 2012. Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds). The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 211–221. Oxford: Oxford Uinversity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019. Available online at [URL]
2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. Available online at [URL]
Degand, L. & Fagard, B. 2011. Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18 (1), 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G. 2011. Contextually determined fixity and flexibility in thing sentence matrixes.’ Yearbook of Phraseology, 2 1, 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. An analysis of the thing is that sentences, Pragmatics, 22 (1). 41–78.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. 2002. Stance and consequence. Paper presented at Annual meetings of the American anthropological association , New Orleans, LA, November 20–24.
Erman, B. & Warren, B. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20 1, 29–62.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic Marker. Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167–182.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haselow, A. 2015. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: the case of anyway . In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2015. Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88 1, 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. A. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In L. Ritva (Ed.). Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 2022a. Constructional variation and change in N-is focaliser constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Keizer (Eds.). English noun phrases from a functional-cognitive perspective: Current issues, 206–233. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022b. N-is Focalizers as semi-fixed constructions: modeling variation across World Englishes, Journal of English Linguistics, 115–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E. 2013. The X Is (Is) Construction. In J. L. Mackenzie & H. Olbertz (Eds.). Casebook in functional discourse grammar, 213–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. The (the) Fact is (that) Construction in English and Dutch. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer & A. Lohmann (Eds.). Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 59–96. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, U. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mantlik, A. & Schmid, H.-J. 2018. That-complementiser omission in N + be + that-clauses. In A. Ho-Cheong Leung & W. van der Wurff (Eds.). The noun phrase in English: Past and present, 187–222. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mautner, G. 2010. Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & Weinert, R. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mulder, J. & Thompson, S. A. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In L. Ritva (Ed.). Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Oxford English dictionary. Online edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinson, M. forthcoming. From the financial to the metatextual: the emergence of discursive bottom line . In C. Petraş (Ed.) Metalinguistic Markers: Emergence, Discourse, Variation.
Ross-Hagebaum, S. 2005. The that’s X is Y construction as an information-structure amalgam. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 30 1, 403–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Presupposition can be a bluff: How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 1, 1529–1552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Shell nouns in English – a personal roundup. Caplletra, 64 1, 109–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. How the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model might enrich diachronic construction grammar: The case of (the) thing is (that). In T. Colleman, F. Brisard, A. De Wit, R. Enghels, N. Koutsoukos, T. Mortelmans & M. S. Sansiñena. The wealth and breadth of construction-based research, 306–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, R. 2014a. On the development of the point is and related issues in the history of American English. English Linguistics, 31 (1), 79–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. On the grammaticalization of the thing is and related issues in the history of American English. In M. Adams, R. D. Fulk & L. Brinton (Eds.). Studies in the history of English language VI 1, 99–121. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2018. Sequentiality and the emergence of new constructions: That’s the bottom line is (that) in American English. In H. Cuyckens, H. de Smet, L. Heyvaert & C. Maekelberghe (Eds.). Explorations in English historical syntax, 283–306. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. On the function of the epistemic adverbs surely and no doubt at the left and right peripheries of the clause. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 72–91. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2018. Rethinking the role of invited inferencing in change from the perspective of interactional texts. Open Linguistics, 4 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. & Dasher, R. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. & Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, H. 2016. The (X) thing is: From a matrix clause to a discourse marker. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 555–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2008. Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012. What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar