On Analysing the Pronoun IT

Abstract

IntroductionIt is commonly assumed by grammarians of English that among the personal pronouns the word it has two types of usage, one which is parallel to the other pronouns of the class, and the other one of a kind which is distinct from anything found with the other personal pronouns. 1 As these facts are represented by grammarians, the special uses of it are generally listed as comprising three distinct cases which appear to be the same in all grammars in use today, and thus create the impression that there is a complete agreement between the different grammarians on this point. It seems, however, that while the grammarians are agreed on the kind of cases in which the special it is said to be used, their agreement does not necessarily include anything more. If we go beyond the mere statement of the type of sentences in which this it is found and inquire into the semantic and syntactic nature of the word, the impression of agreement is replaced by a picture which offers a variety of different views. To be sure, there has recently been a tendency among modern grammarians towards greater agreement on the nature of the special it, but differences of opinion are certainly still there even on fundamental questions of analysis. A telling example of this is a recent controversy: the analysis of the so-called anticipatory it proposed in Seppänen, Engström and Seppänen (1990), and the treatment of the same data by Kaltenböck (1998Kaltenböck ( , 1999 which sees the Seppänen et al view as fundamentally misguided and rejects it on all essential points of the analysis. As regards the raw data examined, there is no disagreement here, but the two descriptions offered of those data come to conclusions which are diametrically opposed. As both sides in this exchange refer to earlier analyses which support their own views, it is clear that the controversy reflects a situation where there are genuine differences between different grammarians in the interpretation of the relevant linguistic structures.It is clear then that in spite of appearances, the proper analysis of the special uses of it involves open questions and is clearly in need of further study. Returning to examine this part of the grammar, I propose to concentrate on the two uses of it discussed in the Seppänen vs. Kaltenböck exchange, leaving out cleft sentences, which were not involved in the controversy. I will begin by briefly indicating the basic facts and the main trends in their treatment by both older and more modern grammarians of English (section 2), and will then examine separately the nature of the so-called weather it (section 3) and the socalled anticipatory it (section 4), finishing with some concluding remarks.

Talking about the weather: Two construals of precipitation events in English

“…Instead, weather it should be considered either a nonreferential "quasi-argument" (Chomsky 1981: 323-325;Rizzi 1986;Rizzi 1990: 86;Vikner 1995: 227-228) or a fully referential argument (Bolinger 1973;1977;Bennis 1986;Pesetsky 1995: 111;Stephens 2007). 5 Despite widespread and longstanding support for this proposal, the alternative proposal-that weather it is a meaningless expletive-persists, appearing in grammars of English, introductory syntax textbooks, and research articles (Quirk & Greenbaum 1973: 173;Hurford 1994: 227;Berk 1999: 21;Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1482Seppänen 2002;Carnie 2007: 228). Such an analysis reflects the intuition that precipitation events lack participants.…”

Just do it.®, Because I’m worth it®, I’m lovin’ it® : la construction de la référence de IT dans le slogan publicitaire

“…There are certain items in every language which have the property of reference, […] that is to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for their 6 Cette étude n'a pas vocation à résoudre la question de la référentialité de it. Il peut être intéressant de consulter à ce sujet les travaux de Bolinger (1977), Huddleston (1984), Quirk et al (1985), Wales (1996), Cotte (1997Cotte ( , 1998, El Kaladi (1998), Lapaire et Rotgé (1998), Kaltenböch (1999), Seppänen (2002) et Neveux (2012). interpretation.…”

The have-it-that construction

“…An important area of research revolves around the most problematic aspects of so-called 'anticipatory' it, one of the main components of extrapositional structures. In this regard, Seppänen (2002) argues for the semantic emptiness of it, while Kaltenböck (2002Kaltenböck ( , 2003 regards it as an element with semantic content. Concerning the study of the factors originating and constraining extrapositional processes, it has been claimed that elements take extraposed final position when they are syntactically very complex, in which position they are processed and understood more easily both by the speaker and the addressee (Gómez-González 1997, Hewings & Hewings 2002, Fitriati 2006.…”