Is it correct? vs Is that correct?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GoesStation

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Let's consider the following example: If he leaves tomorrow, will it/this/that upset you?

Are all three pronouns possible here?
Only "it" is possible. Does it help to clarify this if you reverse the clauses to Will it/this/that upset you if he leaves tomorrow?

One more question: Is there any difference in usage between It makes sense and This/that makes sense?
Yes. They are used in different contexts.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Only "it" is possible. Does it help to clarify this if you reverse the clauses to Will it/this/that upset you if he leaves tomorrow?

But with boundary-crossing reference all three would be possible, right? Suppose he leaves tomorrow. Will it/this/that upset you?

Yes. They are used in different contexts.

Which one would you use to express your agreement or understanding of something?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Sorry, jutfrank, I don't understand. Both 1) and 3) consist of two utterances and have a pronoun with boundary-crossing reference, right? Why does the former allow all three pronouns, while the latter only this/that?

Well, actually I don't think it works extremely well in 1) because it's a rather forced example. The thought would be much better expressed by using a relative pronoun (which) instead.

I didn't mean to say that anaphoric reference cannot cross utterance boundaries—it can—just that when there is a crossing of a boundary, it is more likely that a speaker will use a demonstrative. The clearer the boundary, the greater the need for a demonstrative. I don't think Swan's example is a good one to use to think about this. I suspect he was deliberately trying hard to find an example where the boundary was not very clear, and which thus allowed all three.

Let's consider the following example: If he leaves tomorrow, will it/this/that upset you?

Are all three pronouns possible here? If so, why does this example differ from 2) in terms of pronoun usage?

As GS said, only it is appropriate here, for reasons I believe I've explained above.

Let me share my thoughts. I can distinguish four types of reference in this discussion:
a) object reference within an utterance (Swan's example) => it
b) boundary-crossing reference to a fact/idea/thought ('this' and 'that' point at something — in this case, text that's nearby or at least a little further away) => this/that
c) boundary-crossing reference to an event (she decided to paint her house pink) => this/that/it
d) event reference within an utterance (he leaves tomorrow) => this/that/it

What do you think?

Interesting. Instead of commenting about this, let me share with you my thoughts:

A way in to thinking about the semantic difference between it and the demonstratives this/that is this: a speaker's use of this/that is deictic whereas a use of it is simply endophoric (i.e., either anaphoric or cataphoric). (I think some semanticists might disagree with me there, but never mind for the moment.) The term 'deictic' means that reference is made relative to the situation of the speaker. With the demonstratives, reference is made to an entity in the situation. This is why I'd ask What's this? rather than What is it? when enquiring about an unknown object I've just discovered. That's quite simple to understand. But where it gets hard to see is where the situation is the discourse itself. This is why we so commonly use demonstratives to refer to elements of our own speech and writing. When we want to talk about something that has been said or written during the conversation or discussion we're having, whether by ourselves or by other participants, we use this/that, not it, because the reference is deictic (a kind of discourse deixis). Your example 3) is a superb example of this use of a demonstrative for discourse deixis because it's very clear that you're referring to something that GoesStation previously said. That's not the case with 'normal' anaphor, as in 1).

One more question: Is there any difference in usage between It makes sense and This/that makes sense?

Since the reference is to something that the other person just said, it is fully appropriate to use a deictic demonstrative.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
With the demonstratives, reference is made to an entity in the situation. This is why I'd ask What's this? rather than What is it? when enquiring about an unknown object I've just discovered.

I've found an interesting explanation (https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/what-is-this-vs-what-is-it.3524948/):

If someone hands me a book and it is obvious to me it is a book, I would say "What is this?"

If it is in a package (the book) then I would say "What is it?" (inside)

Do you agree with this distinction?

I'd also like to suggest three contexts
for analysis:

Context 1:
A:
I'm going to withdraw all the money from my account because of the growing crisis.
B: This/That makes sense.

Context 2:
A:
We are facing a financial crisis.
B: This is true/That's true.

Context 3:
A: We are facing a financial crisis.
B: I wouldn't be so sure.
A: But
it's true!

Have I used the pronouns above correctly? If so, how should I change context 1 for 'it makes sense' to work?

I need to analyze different examples to better understand the nuances of pronoun usage. I've already found some through Ludwig. Would you help me with them? I understand if you're tired of this thread.

P.S. By ''you'' I mean not only jutfrank. I would be glad to get some help from other members.


 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
If someone hands me a book and it is obvious to me it is a book, I would say "What is this?"

If it is in a package (the book) then I would say "What is it?" (inside)

Do you agree with this distinction?

No. This
has nothing to do with the speaker's knowledge of the identity of the object. In the first, this is appropriate but not because it's obvious it's a book. A speaker would just as well use this if the identity were unknown. In the second, a speaker could similarly use a deictic expression. In fact, it would be more likely (What's that?).

Have I used the pronouns above correctly?

Yes.

If so, how should I change context 1 for 'it makes sense' to work?
Make it anaphoric, not deictic, with an obvious antecedent:

A: What do you think of
my idea?
B:
It makes sense.

The clearest kind of anaphor is where the antecedent is an easily identifiable, simple noun phrase rather than an entire clause or implicit idea.

I need to analyze different examples to better understand the nuances of pronoun usage. I've already found some through Ludwig. Would you help me with them? I understand if you're tired of this thread.

Sure, I'd be happy to. Just as long as you don't ask me about the for a few weeks! And as long as you let me have a say in which examples to analyse (or not to) because I think that's absolutely crucial.

P.S. By ''you'' I mean not only jutfrank. I would be glad to get some help from other members.

I too would be very keen for others to join in.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Sure, I'd be happy to. Just as long as you don't ask me about the for a few weeks!

Fair enough.:)

And as long as you let me have a say in which examples to analyse (or not to) because I think that's absolutely crucial.

I can't deny you that right, of course.:)

Here are the first several examples:

1) https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/27/gary-lineker-england-captain-players-choose
A captain is primarily an off-the-field middleman between the team and the manager, and at times the media. He’s the players’ representative. It is almost an ambassadorial role. This is undoubtedly the crux of the job. A far more important aspect than anything that occurs on the pitch.
In other countries, the squad players choose their own captain.
They have a vote at the start of the season. It makes sense too. Why should the manager/coach get to select the guy he may have to argue or negotiate with about something that may have upset his fellow players?

The first 'it' is clearly anaphoric and refers to the preceding subject complements (AP and NP) answering the question 'who?', while the second 'it' refers to the whole sentence. 'This' like the first 'it' refers to the preceding NP. This is confusing. What determines the choice of pronoun here?

2) https://www.forbes.com/2007/02/12/y...-ent-tech-cx_kw_0212wharton.html#70b728ef2da5
Well it turns out all of the security dialogs were written in Java. Somebody thought it would be a good idea to have the security manager be a Java application so that you didn't have to port to all the different [platforms]. It makes sense, I guess.

3) ...cooperate in defending against them, by building two separate systems with the same goal. It makes sense practically, militarily andpolitically. It would show once and for all that we can build security with each other, rather than ...(The New York Times)

4) https://www.economist.com/johnson/2012/08/06/wasted-in-translation
During the parade of athletes at the Olympics opening ceremony, the announcer presented each country's delegation first in French and then in English. This makes sense, of course. French and English are the official languages of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

5) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1998/01/knees-help-set-bodys-clock
The result: Body core temperatures and melatonin outputs of the test subjects--but not controls--shifted consistently in response to the light exposure, in some cases by 3 hours. This makes sense, Campbell says. He points out that many other vertebrates have light-sensitive systems that don't involve their eyes, adding that more ancient ways of setting the body's clock may still exist...


And again, in contexts (2) and (3) 'it' refers to the whole idea, not just an NP. How do (2-3) differ from (4-5) in this respect? It seems that when the focus is on the main idea of a preceding clause/sentence, authors use 'it' and 'this' interchangeably.
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Let's go one at a time.

A captain is primarily an off-the-field middleman between the team and the manager, and at times the media. He’s the players’ representative. It is almost an ambassadorial role. This is undoubtedly the crux of the job. A far more important aspect than anything that occurs on the pitch.
In other countries, the squad players choose their own captain.
They have a vote at the start of the season. It makes sense too. Why should the manager/coach get to select the guy he may have to argue or negotiate with about something that may have upset his fellow players?


The first 'it' is clearly anaphoric and refers to the preceding subject complements (AP and NP) answering the question 'who?',

It refers to the subject of the first sentence A captain. I wouldn't say it answers the question 'who'.

while the second 'it' refers to the whole sentence.

I'm not sure about this one. It seems like a dummy to me.

'This' like the first 'it' refers to the preceding NP. This is confusing. What determines the choice of pronoun here?

The deictic use of a demonstrative here is the speaker's way of pointing out the importance of what he's just said.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
It refers to the subject of the first sentence A captain.

Oh, you're right!

I wouldn't say it answers the question 'who?'.

I sometimes forget that roles/professions answer to the question 'what?' in English. They're always 'who' in Russian.

I'm not sure about this one. It seems like a dummy to me.

We can verify that with a test for an anaphor:

"
It makes sense too." -> "What makes sense?" -> "The fact that they have a vote at the start of the season."

The deictic use of a demonstrative here is the speaker's way of pointing out the importance of what he's just said.

Does it mean that 'this' is optional here? I mean the speaker could've used 'it' if (s)he hadn't wanted to point the importance out.

 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
We can check it out with a test for cataphora:

"
It makes sense too." -> "What makes sense?" -> "The fact that they have a vote at the start of the season."

The fact that the team chooses its captain makes sense, yes.

You'll have to ask a grammar expert about the grammar, but I think it's right to say that there's no antecedent/postcedent of it, which makes it a dummy.

But yes, you're right that the 'referent' is the fact that the team chooses its own captain.


Does it mean that 'this' is optional here? I mean the speaker could have used 'it' if (s)he hadn't wanted to point the importance out.

Yes, right.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
We can check it out with a test for cataphora:

"
It makes sense too." -> "What makes sense?" -> "The fact that they have a vote at the start of the season."

I changed ''We can check it out with a test for cataphora'' to "We can verify that with a test for an anaphor" just before your replied.

Yes, right.

The most difficult thing is to figure out whether the choice of pronoun is free or not.

What do you think of the rest examples (2-5)? Are pronouns interchangeable there?

 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
What do you think of the rest examples (2-5)? Are pronouns interchangeable there?

Don't ever ask me if two words are interchangeable because I'll almost always try to answer 'no'. The question is not whether two pronouns are interchangeable, but why the speaker decided to use the word he did.

Well it turns out all of the security dialogs were written in Java. Somebody thought it would be a good idea to have the security manager be a Java application so that you didn't have to port to all the different [platforms]. It makes sense, I guess.

We're talking about the It in the last sentence, right? I think it's comparable to the one in the first example. When the referent is understood as an idea expressible grammatically as a that-clause, a non-deictic it is a natural and sufficient choice.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Don't ever ask me if two words are interchangeable because I'll almost always try to answer 'no'.

Understood.

I think it's comparable to the one in the first example. When the referent is understood as an idea expressible grammatically as a that-clause, a non-deictic it is a natural and sufficient choice.

In this case the referent is the idea expressed as an infinitive phrase (clause?): "It makes sense." -> "What?" -> "To have the security manager be a Java application so that you didn't have to port to all the different [platforms]."
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
In this case the referent is the idea expressed as an infinitive phrase (clause?): "It makes sense." -> "What?" -> "To have the security manager be a Java application so that you didn't have to port to all the different [platforms]."

Oh, yes, sorry. Still, the same goes for to-infinitive clauses. Look at the following sentences:

It's hard to fall asleep.
To fall asleep is hard.

It's a good idea that you leave now.
That you leave now is a good idea.


I wish I knew how to explain the grammar of the first sentences of each pair ('extraposed' subjects or something like that?). I believe that the its are best regarded as dummies, but you can understand them as anteceding the longer subject phrases. In that sense, they're clearly anaphoric. You can't use this/that with this kind of reference.

(It looks like it's just you and me again, Alexey. How did that happen!)
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Oh, yes, sorry. Still, the same goes for to-infinitive clauses. Look at the following sentences:

It's hard to fall asleep.
To fall asleep is hard.

It's a good idea that you leave now.
That you leave now is a good idea.

I've never had difficulties with an extraposed 'it'. But if I change your example to an anaphoric structure, the choice of pronoun won't be so clear to me:

- To fall asleep is hard for him.
- That's true. -> What's true? -> The fact that to fall asleep is hard for him.

Would 'it' work here too? If not, how does this example differ from:

- Somebody thought it would be a good idea to have the security manager be a Java application so that you didn't have to port to all the different [platforms]"
- It makes sense. -> What? -> (The idea) to have the security manager ...

(It looks like it's just you and me again, Alexey. How did that happen!)

Given that my manner of discussing things can be quite tedious, it's a miracle that you are still here with me. :)
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
- To fall asleep is hard for him.
- That's true. -> What's true? -> The fact that to fall asleep is hard for him.

Would 'it' work here too?

Your chain of thought here suggests to me that you may not have understood what I said in previous posts. (Though that's not at all surprising because I really didn't say it well.) Let me try again.

When the person responds That's true, the use of That as opposed to It is deictic. That means that the speaker is referring to the speech of his interlocutor. He's thinking of what his interlocutor said (the utterance) as a thing, to be pointed out.

This is the key difference between deictic and non-deictic uses, as I understand it. Deictic uses essentially treat utterances as if they were physical objects, whereas non-deictic, anaphoric uses do not. Anaphoric reference is a grammatical relation only, which occurs when two grammatical items are co-referent. That means that the reference of the pronoun it is always and only ever to another grammatical element within the discourse, not to a thing in the world.


So given that, let me recast your line of thought:

- To fall asleep is hard for him.
- That's true.
-> What's true?
-> What you just said—your last utterance.

Do you see what I did? The thing that is true is the utterance itself, not the information content of the utterance. They're not quite the same thing. This is how I understand things, anyway.

This is really hard to understand. Do you follow? I'll say it one more time:

When we use this/that, we're referring to our utterances (both written and spoken) as things in the world, much like any other objects. When we use it, we're making reference to a grammatical/logical element of the discourse we're participating in.

If not, how does this example differ from:
- Somebody thought it would be a good idea to have the security manager be a Java application so that you didn't have to port to all the different [platforms]"
- It makes sense. -> What? -> (The idea) to have the security manager ...

It differs in that it's deictic, unlike the sentence above, which is not.


Given that my manner of discussing things can be quite tedious, it's a miracle that you are still here with me. :)

I guess that means I'm equally tedious. :)
 
Last edited:

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Do you see what I did? The thing that is true is the utterance itself, not the information content of the utterance.

I see. Let me ask you, how can an utterance, being considered a physical object, be true or false in principle? It's hard to imagine. In this case it's no more true or false than a table. Can tables be true or false? When evaluating the truth of a statement, we always mean its content, don't we? At least I do so.

When we use this/that, we're referring to our utterances (both written and spoken) as things in the world, much like any other objects. When we use it, we're making reference to a grammatical/logical element of the discourse we're participating in.

I understand this difference, though it seems strange to me as I said above. What is not clear to me is when all three pronouns are possible, and when only 'it' or 'this/that' work. What makes the difference?


1a)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: This is true/That's true.
C: What's true?
B: What A just said—his/her last utterance.

1b)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: It's true.
C: What's true?
B: That to fall asleep is hard for him.

2a)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: You must be kidding me!

A: But it's true!
C: What's true?
A: That to fall asleep is hard for him.


2b)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: You must be kidding me!
A: But this is true!
C: What's true?
A: What I just said - my first utterance.


Questions:
1) Do all three pronouns work well in (1a-b)? If not, would you explain why?
2) (2a-b) are very close to my example in #26, which means that 'this' doesn't work in (2b). But why?

I guess that means I'm equally tedious. :)

It means that you're a hardy man, or maybe that means you're a hardy man. I don't know what to choose.
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Let me ask you, how can an utterance, being considered a physical object, be true or false in principle? It's hard to imagine. In this case it's no more true or false than a table. Can tables be true or false? When evaluating the truth of a statement, we always mean its content, don't we? At least I do so.

Understandable objections. You're right, of course—an utterance when considered as a physical object cannot be true or false. But what is true or false is the declarative sentence that is expressed by that utterance. In technical terms, we'd say that the propositional content of a sentence has truth-value. When we say That's true in response to what somebody just said, we're really saying "The propositional content contained within the sentence expressed by your most recent utterance has a positive truth-value."


I understand this difference, though it seems strange to me as I said above. What is not clear to me is when all three pronouns are possible, and when only 'it' or 'this/that' work. What makes the difference?

This is what I've been trying to answer. The difference is made by the kind of reference—whether it's deictic or anaphoric.

1) There are cases where a speaker chooses to use a deictic reference where he could have used a non-deictic one. In these cases, you could ask why he decided to do so.

2) There are cases where only one or the other works. In cases where a deictic one works and a non-deictic one doesn't work, it is sometimes because the whole point of the speaker's utterance is to make a deictic reference, and not doing so would be inappropriate, and sometimes because the antecedent/postcedent is not given clearly by the grammatical context of the discourse.

Imagine that we're walking along the beach when I look up and point to a UFO in the sky. Which of the following would I say?:

What's that?!
What's it?!


One of the above is not possible. Why do you think that is?

1a)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: This is true/That's true.
C: What's true?
B: What A just said—his/her last utterance.

Fine.

1b)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: It's true.
C: What's true?
B: That to fall asleep is hard for him.
Here, utterance B does not work as a response to utterance A, because it does not refer to speaker A's comment. It refers only to the propositional content expressed by the comment. Although it's not impossible to do that, it would be an odd thing to say, requiring a special context. I imagine utterance B as either existing only in the speaker's mind, as a private reflection on the truth-value of utterance A, or perhaps as a parenthetical aside to a third party, outside of the context of the conversation.

2a)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: You must be kidding me!

A: But it's true!
C: What's true?
A: That to fall asleep is hard for him.

Nice. Yes, that works. The comment But it's true! is appropriately non-deictic. It is not referring to the previous comment—only to the truth-value of the comment's propositional content. It would not be possible to use that there, for this reason.

2b)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: You must be kidding me!
A: But this is true!
C: What's true?
A: What I just said - my first utterance.

No, that's not possible, for reasons explained above.

Questions:
1) Do all three pronouns work well in (1a-b)? If not, would you explain why?
2) (2a-b) are very close to my example in #26, which means that 'this' doesn't work in (2b). But why?

I believe I've answered all questions, however badly.


 
Last edited:

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
1) There are cases where a speaker chooses to use a deictic reference where he could have used a non-deictic one. In these cases, you could ask why he decided to do so.

My question is not only about the speaker's choice motivation but also about the contextual reason(s) allowing or prohibiting certain pronouns. There are three types of context with regard to pronoun usage: 1) when all three pronouns can be used, 2) only 'this/that', 3) only 'it'.

My main question is, what are the distinctive features of each type?


1b)
A: To fall asleep is hard for him.
B: It's true.
C: What's true?
B: That to fall asleep is hard for him.


Here, utterance B does not work as a response to utterance A, because it does not refer to speaker A's comment. It refers only to the propositional content expressed by the comment. Although it's not impossible to do that, it would be an odd thing to say, requiring a special context.

Suppose I wanted to refer to the propositional content, as I did in (2a). Why is this a problem? What is so special about this example (my main question above)?


I've found some examples with 'it'. Do they sound odd to you?

1) "Lotus driver and 2007 world champion Kimi Raikkonen had been rumoured to be in contention for the seat...but Raikkonen’s manager Steve Robertson confirmed earlier today that talks regarding a move had broken down earlier in the season. "It's true," said Robertson. "Kimi will not be driving for Red Bull in 2014. We held some talks, but a deal will not be happening."
(
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/daniel-riccardo-could-be-announced-as-mark-webbers-red-bull-replacement-as-early-as-this-weekends-8775039.html)

2) "The excerpt below gives an illustration of two interwoven and familiar 'small stories' about type 2 diabetes: one story concerns a destiny out of the individual's control; the other is one of prevention, diet and exercise.

Woman 1: You can't ever cure it, can you? It's true though, isn't it?
Woman 2: What's not curable?
Woman 1: Sugar. Diabetes.
Woman 2: You can prevent it."
(
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306744/)


3) ... "You love money and power more than you love me"."It's true," I said. "And I'm sorry it's true". ...
(The New Yorker)


​Imagine that we're walking along the beach when I look up and point to a UFO in the sky. Which of the following would I say?:
What's that?!
What's it?!


One of the above is not possible. Why do you think that is?

This is a clear case of pointing a new object out or pointing at it, so the best choice is "that". But suppose UFOs are ordinary things like the Sun or trees; you're a teacher, I'm a first-grader, and you just want to check my knowledge. Could you ask, "What is it?" Don't school teachers ask such a question?
 
Last edited:

GoesStation

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
This is a clear case of pointing a new object out or pointing at it, so the best choice is "that". But suppose UFOs are ordinary things like the Sun or trees; you're a teacher, I'm a first-grader, and you just want to check my knowledge. Could you ask, "What is it?" Don't school teachers ask such a question?
Only "that" is possible in the scenario jutfrank described.
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
My question is ... about the contextual reason(s) allowing or prohibiting certain pronouns. There are three types of context with regard to pronoun usage: 1) when all three pronouns can be used, 2) only 'this/that', 3) only 'it'.


I'm not sure that's a very productive approach. I don't recommend it. At the end of the day, there are only psychological reasons. Don't think of these reference words as if they are subject to grammatical rules. That's only a part of the story.

Suppose I wanted to refer to the propositional content, as I did in (2a). Why is this a problem? What is so special about this example (my main question above)?

I've answered that—it doesn't work as a response to A's remark. It lack coherence. I gave you two ways in which I imagine it could work.

Like I've been saying, we don't just suddenly pull an it out of the air like that—there has to be a clear antecedent, and there isn't one there.

The rule is really quite simple: When you want to make reference to what you or your interlocutor has recently said or written, use this/that, not it.

I've found some examples with 'it'. Do they sound odd to you?

Not at all.

1) Robertson is referring to the propositional content only, not to any previous utterance.

2) I don't really understand what the woman means, so I won't comment on this one.

3) Okay, this is a good example because it's breaking the 'rule' I've given above about using this/that to refer to previous utterances within the context of the conversation. I guess that means you want me to explain it? Well, okay, the best I've got is this: the speaker decided to focus on the fact, or the information, or the truth condition, or the propositional content, rather than the utterance as an object. The fact that I love money and power more than you is a clear enough antecedent to justify using an it. The speaker could have used a that here instead, if he'd wanted to make reference to the utterance instead.


This is a clear case of pointing a new object out or pointing at it, so the best choice is "that".

Yes. I intentionally made the clearest and simplest possible example of use, to show you a case where that is very obviously correct and where it is very obviously wrong. It is by considering these clear cases, not the fuzzy ones, that you will begin to distinguish the differences in meaning and use.

But suppose UFOs are ordinary things like the Sun or trees; you're a teacher, I'm a first-grader, and you just want to check my knowledge. Could you ask, "What is it?" Don't school teachers ask such a question?

No, they don't. That's the whole point of the example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top