13

Consider the following exchange:

[1] Q: Is your name Jane?
     Aa: *Yes, it's right.
     Ab: Yes, that's right.

Note that [1Aa] is simply not acceptable. It's not just that that is preferred to it; it's rather that, in Standard English, it simply cannot be used here.

Why not?

Yes, in the replies [1A], the reference is clearly (supposed to be) deictic rather than anaphoric (see below); and the characteristic usage of 3rd person personal pronouns he/she/it/they is anaphoric. But they certainly can function deictically at least sometimes; CGEL gives the following example (p. 1469): Isn't she lovely! (uttered while looking at someone's baby).

So why is [1Aa] completely unacceptable, rather than just being less favored than [1Ab]?

I am well aware that Yes, it is would be completely acceptable... and I do understand why it would be. But [1Aa] is not, and my question is specifically about why it is not.

Some background on deixis

[1Ab] is a clear example of deictic use of that, very much like the [27ii] example from CGEL (p. 1461):

[27] i A: Kim has been falsifying the accounts. B: That's terrible. [anaphoric]
     ii A: Kim has been falsifying the accounts. B: That's a lie. [discourse-deictic]

In [i] A's utterance is the antecedent for B's that, which refers to the situation that A has described. But in [ii] that refers to A's speech act, to a linguistic entity in the prior discourse.

linguisticturn
  • 12,606
  • Bah, I used all my votes for the day, so I can't vote up this wonderful question. You have my spiritual +1, however. – Dan Bron Apr 01 '17 at 17:05
  • In the context of Is your name Jane? Yes, it is,** the respondent's *it* refers to *your name. If the reply is Yes, that's right,* it's *that "answer"* (the one you put forward as a possibility) which/that is correct. I don't really see anything confusing about the referent of *it* there. Pity us older Brits though - we have to deal with much worse stuff, *innit?* – FumbleFingers Apr 01 '17 at 17:32
  • @FumbleFingers I'm not asking about Yes, it is, though. Yes, it is would be completely acceptable (and I do understand why), whereas Yes, it is right is completely unacceptable (and I don't really understand why). – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 17:49
  • @DanBron I appreciate the spiritual +1. Thanks! – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 17:50
  • 3
    @linguisticturn: As I thought I was pointing out, it's really just a matter of whether there's a credible referent for *it. Note that that* is more flexible, since it can refer to that assertion you just made (or in your example, that possible answer you suggested), but you can't do this with *is* unless the intended referent has already been framed as, for example, Is it true that* your name is X?*). – FumbleFingers Apr 01 '17 at 19:28
  • @FumbleFingers You say 'unless the intended referent has already been framed.' I think that this is equivalent to saying that it can function only anaphorically. But if so, that's not true. Counterexample: suppose you and your friend are looking at a glass tipping over the edge of the table, and you say, It's gonna fall. No prior linguistic framing (if I understand what you mean by that) here; the reference is fully deictic. But even apart from this deictic/anaphoric business, here is my question: why, precisely, doesn't [1Q] count as 'proper framing' for the referent of it in [1Aa]? – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 20:23
  • I don't follow that. Possible responses to It's gonna fall! include both It is (*it* = the thing that's gonna fall), and It's/That's true (*it/that* = the thing you just said). In that particular case we very much favour *that* for the second nuance because *it* has already been used with a referent that can't actually "be true". But that doesn't arise with, say, Life's a bitch, it's true - which could be a single statement from one person, or one statement by him followed by a rejoinder from someone else agreeing with him. – FumbleFingers Apr 01 '17 at 20:50
  • @linguisticturn I'm not a linguist, but I think that using 'it' in 1Aa would refer to 'name' (vs 'that' referring to the statement in 1Ab) and it is not 'name' that is right but the fact that her name is Jane that is right. As you've said, she could say 'Yes it is Jane' or 'My name is Jane' meaning that her name is Jane but she would not say 'Yes it is right' or 'My name is right'. – Tony Linde Apr 01 '17 at 20:53
  • @TonyLinde If the answer were Yes, it is, then your/my name would surely be interpreted to be the antecedent of it. Indeed, usually it has an antecedent---but not always. So the question is this: the context makes it clear that in [1Aa], it is meant by the answerer to refer to the whole statement; no one would misunderstand the answerer, we would just say it's bad grammar. But what exactly makes it bad grammar, given that there is clearly enough context to fix the referent of it, and given that it at least sometimes functions deictically? Why can't it function that way in [1Aa]? – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 21:11
  • @FumbleFingers If I understood you correctly, you were saying that in order for it to refer to something, that something---the intended referent of it---must already have been framed. So now, in the sentence It's gonna fall, it refers to the glass. What framed the glass as the referent of it in that sentence? – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 21:17
  • What framed the glass as the referent of it in that sentence? Something earlier in the conversation (or otherwise contextually obvious). But it isn't a matter of absolute/binary categorisation. Consider It is so as a response to Life's a bitch. I'd say it's effectively a matter of opinion / intention there as to whether *it* refers to *life, or to that statement*. – FumbleFingers Apr 01 '17 at 21:28
  • @linguisticturn I see what you mean and I've no idea if it is bad grammar. Could it be that if the phrase referred to contains anything that could act as an antecedent to 'it' then that interpretation takes precedence over 'it' referring to the whole statement. That would certainly seem to be common usage, whether following from some rule of grammar or not. – Tony Linde Apr 01 '17 at 21:33
  • @TonyLinde Anything's possible... But it would be nice if someone actually knew what it was... I certainly don't---thus this question! :) – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 21:40
  • @FumbleFingers 'Or otherwise contextually obvious'---yes, precisely! Well, arguably, [1Q] does make it contextually obvious that it in [1Aa] should refer to the entire statement; after all, if someone actually replied to [1Q] by [1Aa], we wouldn't be confused as far as what the person meant by [1Aa]; we would just say the person was using bad grammar. So... what, exactly, is it that makes it bad grammar? It's not a lack of context... so what is it then? That's my question, to which I don't have an answer. – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 21:44
  • However, "Is your name [really] Jane?" licences "Yes, it's true!" I can only mention idiosyncrasy (as a convenient label rather than a rationale). – Edwin Ashworth Apr 01 '17 at 22:35
  • @linguisticturn “in order for it to refer to something, that something---the intended referent of it---must already have been framed” — This seems exactly right to me. The crux is that it just needs to be framed to function anaphorically; it doesn’t necessarily have to be linguistically framed. Non-linguistic context and clues can create enough framing that anaphora works. If you’re both looking at the same glass, and you both know the other is looking at it too, that frames the glass for anaphoric use. In the same situation you could also say, “The glass is going to fall” because → – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 12 '17 at 19:12
  • → you’ve both contextually framed the glass. If you weren’t both looking at a glass about to fall, neither anaphoric it nor the definite article would be possible there; you’d be left with a recipient wondering what’s going to fall / which glass is going to fall. If you ask, “Is your name Jane?”, the only entity framed for anaphoric use is (your) name, so that’s what it would refer to. I disagree with CGEL that “Isn’t she lovely!” is actually a deictic usage—it is anaphoric (or discourse-deictic if you will, but at an even higher level), with the anaphor being metalinguistically defined. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 12 '17 at 19:17
  • Filling in the ellipses in the answers as much as possible makes the problem clearer to me, but not the solution. Q: "Is your name Jane?" Aa: "Yes, it [the name that you just said] is [the] right [name]." Ab1: "Yes, that [name you just said] is [the] right [name]." Ab2: "Yes, that [statement you just made] is right." Here, both Ab1 and Ab2 sound possible to me, but Aa still sounds wrong or at least awkward. But I'm not sure why—maybe because we need a parenthetical explanation of the "it"? There doesn't seem to be a way to make the statement explicit without one. – 1006a May 18 '17 at 20:14

3 Answers3

1

I think "1Aa" is unacceptable on a semantical point of view. It seems awkward to refer to someone's name as being 'right'. In this sentence, the grammatical function of ' Right ' plays the role of a subject attribute, making an improper judgment of value about someone's given name on a right or wrong standpoint. On the other hand, the sentence '1Ab" refers back to 'that'. I personally never understand what that means whenever 'that' is the subject of a sentence. It just seems unclear. Ultimately, 'that' does not tango with 'it' but pairs with 'this'. There is nothing right or wrong about the name Jane. It's as beautiful as mine, yours, this or that name.

user230919
  • 33
1

Because the thing that's right isn't the name but the assertion. <That her name is Jane> is right/correct. A name alone can't be right or wrong (see Robbie Goodwin's answer), but the relation of a name to an individual can be. "That" is a pro-sentence.

"Yes, it is [Jane]" is correct because it affirms that her name "is Jane", not that her name "is right".

nebuch
  • 179
0

'Right’ and ‘true’ aren’t as interchangeable as they first appear.

I’m sorry I’m off sick without the energy or will-power to expand this and won’t changing ‘right’ in both answers into ‘true’ make both acceptable?

I think the change leaves ‘that’ preferable but also makes ‘Yes, it’s true…’ an option rather than an obvious error.

Robbie Goodwin
  • 2,564
  • I agree that Yes, it's true is not completely unacceptable. Nevertheless, I think that it would be kind of odd-sounding in this context. In order for it to be a likely answer, the context would probably have to be some sort of admitting (as ComGEL says (p. 1115), it 'may' have 'a concessive force'). An example: Q: I heard she named her baby... 'Apple'? A: Yes, it's true... Indeed, if Is your name Jane? were answered by Yes, it's true, I'd assume this was an attempt at mild humor. – linguisticturn Apr 13 '17 at 22:41
  • So long as you recognize 'Yes, it's true' is quite different from ' Yes, it's right…'

    To me 'I heard she named her baby... 'Apple'? A: Yes, it's true... ' is too far off the point to consider.

    if 'Is your name Jane?' were answered by 'Yes, it's true', I'd be lost as to why that might be an attempt at mild humour.

     – Robbie Goodwin Apr 13 '17 at 23:15
  • The point, I agree, is what an acceptable answer to Is your name Jane? is. The answer Yes, it's true is more-or-less acceptable, while Yes, it's right is definitely not. One way to rephrase my original question is: is there a grammatical reason why one is acceptable, while the other is not? – linguisticturn Apr 14 '17 at 11:26
  • There might not be. It could be, for example, that that's right should actually be considered an idiom, a remnant of times past when grammar worked differently... There is some evidence for this. It sounds awkward to say the statement that 1+1=2 is right; we would rather say is true or is correct. The is right makes it sound as if there were some doubt as to whether the statement was indeed correct. – linguisticturn Apr 14 '17 at 11:26