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 (67)
Austin, J.L. (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blakemore, D. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blakemore, D. (2004) Discourse markers. In L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 221-240.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Calude, A. (2009a) Cleft constructions in spoken English. Berlin: VDM Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Collins, P. (1991) Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.
BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dancygier, B., and E. Sweetser (2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Declerck, R. (1988) Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Foris: Leuven. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Declerck, R. (1992) The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua 871: 203-230. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delahunty, G. (1990) Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 151: 1-28.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delahunty, G. (2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 391: 517-545.
BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doherty, M. (2001) Discourse functions and language-specific conditions for the use of cleft{-like} sentences: A prelude. Linguistics39.3: 457-362. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fraser, B. (1999) What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311: 931-952.
BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gundel, J.K., N. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691: 274-307. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hedberg, N.A. (2000) The referential status of clefts. Language 761: 891–920. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P., and S.A. Thompson (2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 99-123. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horn, L. (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press. BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, R. (1984) Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, R., and G. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laury, R. (2006) On subordination, Finnish-style: Questioning the category of finite clausal complements in spoken Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics 191: 310–321.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K. (2001) A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 391: 463–516. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. (1974) Movement rules in a functional perspective. Language 501: 630–664. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, S. (2001) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miller, J., and R. Weinert (1998/2009) Spontaneous spoken language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rooryck, J. (2000) Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J.R., and K.Y. Pang (2008) Seeing as though. English Language and Linguistics 121: 103-139. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vallaurí, E.L. (2004) Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 171: 189–215.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wray, A. (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BoP![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wray, A. (2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zemskaja, E. (1973) Russkaj razgovornaja reč’. Moscow: Nauka.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.