Cover not available
Part of
Reference: From conventions to pragmatics
Edited by Laure Gardelle, Laurence Vincent-Durroux and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 228] 2023
► pp. 53–70

Is ambient it truly non-referential?

| Université de Bretagne Occidentale, HCTI
This chapter examines the non-referential status frequently ascribed to ambient it (i.e. the pronoun it used with weather verbs and expressions of time and distance). In line with Langacker (2011), I aim to show that this use of the pronoun it is in fact referential. First, I examine the reasons why ambient it is traditionally denied a referential status and propose counter arguments. I then argue that a speaker always conveys a referential intention when using ambient it (frequently accompanied by an ostension gesture). The pointed referent, although completely obvious, is vague and difficult to name and delimit. Finally, I analyze cases that share characteristics with ambient it but that cannot be entirely included in the same category.
Keywords: ambient it, reference, weather it, pronoun, ostension
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is “ambient it”?
    • 2.1Definition
    • 2.2Why is ambient it traditionally considered non-referential?
  • 3.A referential interpretation of ambient it
    • 3.1Ambient it and referring intention
    • 3.2Ambient it, deixis and ostension
    • 3.3Ambient it and anaphora
  • 4.The semantic value of ambient it
    • 4.1Is ambient it a meaningless form?
    • 4.2The problem of delimiting the referent
  • 5.Ambient it: A referential but problematic pronoun
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.228.03mat
References (40)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2010. Reference. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Achard, Michel. 1998. Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Laurie Halse. 2006[1999]. Speak. New York NY: Penguin/Platinum Edition.Google Scholar
Beauchamp Jr., Emerson. 1951. A study of “it:” Handbook treatment and magazine. American Speech 26(3): 173–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1973. Ambient it is meaningful too. Journal of Linguistics 9(2): 261–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1996. “Antecedentless” anaphors: Deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French. Journal of Linguistics 32: 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011[1999]. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cotte, Pierre. 1998[1996]. L’explication grammaticale de textes anglais, 2nd edn. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Dexter. 2014. Season 8. Developed by Charles Manos, Jr. Showtime Networks.Google Scholar
El Kaladi, Ahmed. 1998. Le pronom it et le cumul des fonctions. In Du percevoir au dire, Danielle Leeman & Annie Boone (eds), 183–203. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure. 2010. Article défini, pronoms personnels de 3e personne et démonstratifs: Approche comparée de l’accès à la référence. Anglophonia 14(28): 33–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Let her rain, she’s snowing pretty good: The use of feminine pronouns with weather verbs in colloquial English. Folia Linguistica 49(2): 353–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001[1984]. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Gundel, Jeanette & Borthen, Kaja. 2019. Different senses of “referential.” In The Oxford Handbook of Reference, Jeanette Gundel & Barbara Abbott (eds), 100–116. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Henry. 1998[1897]. What Maisie Knew [Oxford World’s Classics]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Essentials of English Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VII. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993a. Grammatical traces of some “invisible” semantic constructs. Language Sciences 15: 323–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993b. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. On the subjects of impersonals. In Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion, Mario Brdar, Stefan T. Gries & Milena Žic-Fuchs (eds), 179–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillard, Michel. 1985. L’impersonnel français de il à ça. In Autour de l’impersonnel, Jacques Choreyras (ed.), 63–118. Grenoble: Ellug.Google Scholar
Mathurin, Élise. 2018. Le pronom IT et la question de la référence. PhD dissertation, Aix-Marseille Université.
Mondorf, Britta. 2016. “Snake legs it to freedom:” Dummy it as pseudo-object. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(1): 73–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neveux, Julie. 2012. It girl, it bag et le pronom it: Le sens du pronom neutre non anaphorique. Anglophonia 16(32): 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearsall, Thomas E. & Cunningham, Donald H. 1988[1978]. How to Write for the World of Work. Toronto: Holt.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language. 54(4): 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2007. It is raining (somewhere). Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1): 123–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Aimo. 2002. On analysing the pronoun IT. English Studies 83(5): 442–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Aimo & Seppänen, Ruth. 1980. On the non-anaphoric use of the pronoun it: Part two. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81(3): 264–277.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2008. Ways of impersonalizing: Pronominal vs. verbal strategies. In Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 60], María de los Ángeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Elsa M. González Álvarez (eds), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2004. Cataphoric pronouns as mental space designators: Their conceptual import and discourse function. In Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 51], Ellen Contini-Morava, Robert S. Kirsner & Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds), 61–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2015. Vagueness and imprecision: Empirical foundations. Annual Review of Linguistics 2015(1): 107–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1950. On referring. Mind. 59(235): 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar