Article published in:
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: 03 October 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.03kei
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
2007 Complement-taking predicates. Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3): 569-606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1-44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Liselotte
2011 Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2005 Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1988 Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudoclefts. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick
1988 To be or double be? Current changes in the English copula. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 287-305. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Michael & Haley, Michael C.
2002 The reduplicative copula is is . American Speech 77(3): 305-312. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompsom, Sandra A.
2002 ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in language 26(1): 125-163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Corpora

BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus (1980s-1993)
2004 <http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/bnc
COCA: The Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2012)
2008 <http://​www​.americancorpus​.org
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

Cited by 1 other publications

Shibasaki, Reijirou
2018.  In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 202], ► pp. 333 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 january 2021. 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.