THE THAT/ZERO-THAT ALTERNATION WITH ‘I THINK’ ACROSS FORMAL AND INFORMAL REGISTERS

Abstract

The flourishing development of corpus linguistics has significantly advanced research on discourse markers; with I think being one of the most extensively studied examples. Recognizing the scarcity in the current literature regarding the alternation between that- complement and zero-that complement, this study aimed to investigate this variation in the verb think through a corpus-based analysis involving both spoken and written corpus. The overall results showed that I think with a zero-complementizer appears more frequently than I think with a that-complementizer, regardless of the genre, even though I think appears more frequently in the spoken corpus. Further results also showed that the that- complementizer is less frequent, irrespective of the formality of the genres. In addition, I think with a zero-that complement was found to occur more often in the sentence-initial position across genres, while it was rare in medial and final positions. Lastly, the findings demonstrated that instances of intervening adverbials before the that-complementizer are not frequent, whereas the zero-complement alternation with intervening adverbials is more frequent.

Keywords

• Comment clause
• That complementation
• Zero complementation
• That/zero-that alternation
• Corpus analysis

RESMİ VE GAYRİ RESMİ SÖYLEMDE ‘I THINK’ İLE THAT/BOŞ THAT DEĞİŞİMİ

Abstract

Derlem bilim dilbiliminin gelişen yükselişi, söylem belirleyicileri üzerine yapılan araştırmaları önemli ölçüde ilerletmiştir; I think ise en çok incelenen örneklerden biri olmuştur. Mevcut literatürde that ve boş that tamamlaması arasındaki değişimle ilgili sınırlı çalışma olduğunu dikkate alarak, bu çalışma hem sözlü hem de yazılı derlem verilerini içeren derlem tabanlı bir analiz yoluyla think fiiliyle kullanılan that/boş that değişimini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Genel sonuçlar, I think ifadesinin boş tamamlayıcı ile, that tamamlayıcı ile olduğundan daha sık kullanıldığını ve bunun türden bağımsız olarak geçerli olduğunu göstermiştir; ancak, I think ifadesi sözlü derlemde daha yaygın olarak görülmüştür. Daha ileri bulgular, that tamamlayıcısının, türlerin resmiyet düzeyinden bağımsız olarak, daha az sıklıkla kullanıldığını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, I think ifadesinin boş that tamamlayıcısı ile türler arasında daha çok cümle başında yer aldığı, ancak cümlenin orta ve son konumlarında nadiren görüldüğü tespit edilmiştir. Son olarak, bulgular, that tamamlayıcısından önce gelen bağlamsal zarf kullanımlarının oldukça sınırlı olduğunu, buna karşın boş değişiminin bağlamsal zarflarla daha sık görüldüğünü göstermiştir.

Keywords

• Yorum cümlesi
• That tamlaması
• Boş tamlama
• That/boş that değişimi
• Derlem analizi

References

1. Aijmer, K. (1997). I think – An English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. Jansen Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–47). Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
3. Bogaert, J. V. (2011). I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics, 49(2), 295–332. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2011.009
4. Bolinger, D. L. (1972). That’s that. Mouton.
5. Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
6. Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Bryant, M. M. (Ed.) (1962). Current American usage. Funk & Wagnalls.
8. Cacoullos, R. T., & Walker, J. A. (2009). On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that. Linguistics, 47(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.001

9. Chang, J. Y. (2014). The use of general and specialized corpora as reference sources for academic English writing: A case study. ReCALL, 26(2), 243–259. doi:10.1017/S0958344014000056
10. Cobb, T., & Boulton, A. (2015). Classroom applications of corpus analysis. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 478–497). Cambridge University Press.
11. Dehé, N., & Wichmann, A. (2010). Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that). Studies in Language, 34(1), 36–74. doi:10.1075/sl.34.1.02deh
12. Elsness, J. (1984). That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies, 65(6), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/00138388408598357
13. Fang, L., Ma, Q., & Yan, J. (2021). The effectiveness of corpus-based training on collocation use in L2 writing for Chinese senior secondary school students. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 1(1), 80-109.
14. Ferreira, V. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying that is not saying that at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379–398.
15. Finegan, E., & Biber, D. (1985). That and zero complementizers in Late Modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In B. Aarts & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in contemporary English (pp. 241–257). Cambridge University Press.
16. Harder, P. (2008). Comment clauses, functional discourse grammar and the grammar–discourse interface. In J. Mackenzie & M. Gómez-González (Eds.), A new architecture for functional grammar (pp. 197–226). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197112.197
17. Heine, B., & Kaltenböck, G. (2021). From clause to discourse marker: On the development of comment clauses. Language Sciences, 87, 1–16.
18. Hidarto, A., & Andrianto, S. (2015). The omissibility of that in noun complement clauses: Corpus evidence. In Proceedings of the 3rd Atma Jaya Conference on Corpus Studies (pp. 1–21). (pp. 1-21).
19. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226.
20. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
21. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
22. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
23. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
24. Ishikawa, S. (2016). Use of that-clauses after reporting verbs in Asian learners’ speech and writing: Frequency, verb type, and that-omission. EPiC Series in Language and Linguistics, 1, 202–215.
25. Kaatari, H. (2018). On the syntactic status of I’m sure. Corpora, 13(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0134
26. Kaltenböck, G. (2006). “… That is the question”: Complementizer omission in extraposed that-clauses. English Language and Linguistics, 10, 371-396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306001961
27. Kaltenböck, G. (2009a). English comment clauses: Position, prosody, and scope. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 34(1), 51–78.
28. Kaltenböck, G. (2009b). Initial “I think”: Main or comment clause? Discourse and Interaction, 2(1), 49–70.
29. Li, L. P., & Pang, Y. (2022). A corpus-based pragmatic analysis of discourse marker “I think”. Open Access Library Journal, 9, e9301. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1109301
30. Man, D., & Chau, M. H. (2009). Learning to evaluate through that-clauses: Evidence from a longitudinal learner corpus. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.007
31. Martín, J. C., & Barranco, J. R. (2014). On the use of that/zero as object clause links in early English medical writing. Studia Neophilologica, 86(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2014.900595
32. Muftah, M. (2023). Data-driven learning (DDL) activities: do they truly promote EFL students’ writing skills development?. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 13179–13205. Povolná, R. (2003). Comment clauses in English face-to-face conversation. Theory and Practice in English Studies, 1, 71-82.
33. Povolná, R. (2005). On some I-oriented comment clauses as response elicitors in spoken English. Discourse and Interaction, 1, 86–97.
34. Pöldvere, N., Fuoli, M., & Paradis, C. (2016). A study of dialogic expansion and contraction in spoken discourse using corpus and experimental techniques. Corpora, 11(2), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2016.0092
35. Ranger, G. (2011). Review of The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development, by Laurel J. Brinton. Lexis, Book reviews. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.1951
36. Rissanen, M. (1991). On the history of that/zero as object clause links in English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 272–289). Longman.
37. Ritčik, J. (2014). A corpus-based analysis of that-deletion in complement clauses after the verbs of saying, thinking, and discovering in English and Lithuanian. [Master’s thesis, Lietuvos Edukologijos Universitetas]. Lituanistika Database
38. Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
39. Rosefeldt, T. (2008). That-clauses and non-nominal quantification. Philosophical Studies, 137, 301–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-0002-8
40. Shank, C., Plevoets, K., & Cuyckens, H. (2014). A diachronic corpus-based multivariate analysis of “I think that” vs. “I think zero”. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.11sha
41. Shank, C., Bogaert, J. V., & Plevoets, K. (2016). The diachronic development of zero complementation: A multifactorial analysis of the that/zero alternation with think, suppose, and believe. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(1), 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0074
42. Shank, C., & Plevoets, K. (2018). Investigating the impact of structural factors upon that/zero complementizer alternation patterns in verbs of cognition: A diachronic corpus-based multifactorial analysis. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 6, 83–112. https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.06.07
43. Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, J. (2005). No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674305001711
44. Taşçı, S., & Öztürk, Y. (2021). Post-predicate that-clauses controlled by verbs in native and non-native English. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v4n1.486
45. Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90107-Z
46. Walter, M., & Jaeger, T. (2005). Constraints on optional that: A strong word form OCP effect. In Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 505-519).
47. Warner, A. R. (1982). Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax: A study of the Wyclifite Sermons. Croom Helm.
48. Zidan, B. A., & Yagi, S. M. (2025). A parallel corpus analysis of the pragmatic marker “I think”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(3), 706–715. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1503.05