5

Consider the following exchanges:

[1Q]: Is E̲x̲x̲o̲n̲ your parent company?.................. [1A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is our parent company.
[2Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲p̲a̲r̲e̲n̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲m̲p̲a̲n̲y̲ Exxon ?                    [2A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Exxon.
[3Q]: Is A̲l̲e̲x̲ her father?......................................... [3A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is her father.
[4Q]: Is h̲e̲r̲ ̲f̲a̲t̲h̲e̲r̲ Alex?                                               [4A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Alex.
[5Q]: Is t̲h̲e̲ ̲t̲a̲l̲l̲ ̲F̲r̲e̲n̲c̲h̲ ̲d̲u̲d̲e̲ your roommate? ..... [5A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is my roommate.
[6Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲r̲o̲o̲m̲m̲a̲t̲e̲ a tall French dude?           [6A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is a tall French dude.
[7Q]: Is J̲i̲m̲ your name?......................................... [7A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is my name.
[8Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Jim?                                               [8A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Jim.
[9Q]: Is M̲c̲T̲a̲g̲g̲a̲r̲t̲'̲s̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Jim? .......................... [9A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Jim.
[10Q] Is t̲h̲e̲ ̲m̲a̲i̲n̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲o̲r̲y̲'̲s̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Bootstrapping?   [10A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Bootstrapping.

What explains the differing levels of acceptability of the A-sentences in [1]-[10], especially the absolute unacceptability of [8A]-[10A]?

Note that in [8A]-[10A], it doesn't help to replace that by this (imagine the conversation is taking place face-to-face).

A bit of background

Note that in all cases [1]-[10], that could be replaced by it and the result would be an acceptable sentence (except possibly [7], when the it is quite dubious, if not completely unacceptable). I take that to mean that that in each of the A-sentences above functions anaphorically, with its antecedent underlined in the corresponding Q-sentence.

Of course, the characteristic function of that is deictic, but it definitely can at least sometimes function anaphorically. CGEL gives the following example (p. 1507): They had a b̲l̲u̲e̲ rug, but t̲h̲a̲t̲ isn't the color I wanted, where the antecedent of that is blue (they are coreferential, and both refer to the color of the rug).

I think [7] is different from the rest because Jim in [7Q] should really be in quotes. In other words, Jim does not refer to Jim-the-person, but rather to the word itself---in other words, the word Jim here refers to itself. Thus, technically, Jim and that are coreferential, because they both refer to Jim-the word; but perhaps this self-reference of Jim throws us off, because we expect that when the referent is a word, the reference is deictic rather than anaphoric. The following example supports that guess:

Q: Is the Prince symbol your name? A:?Yes, it is my name.

We would still probably prefer to use that (and I would be interested to know why), but it seems to me that it is here more acceptable than it is in [7A]. And my guess as to why is that the words the Prince symbol no longer refer to themselves, but to the symbol that Prince used to use as his name.

linguisticturn
  • 12,606
  • "That" normally refers to things or ideas rather than people. You can get away with it if "person" is implied: "that [person] is Jim." In #3/4/6, "he" would be more appropriate than "that" when referring conceptually by name/description. "It" is a generic substitute, but "this" and "that" have a sense of closeness. "This" refers to something closer and "that" refers to something more remote. #8 sounds odd because a remote term seems inconsistent with your own name. #7 works because "that" refers to the name, not the person. – fixer1234 Apr 01 '17 at 19:04
  • @fixer1234 Thank you! Some questions: 1. You say '#8 sounds odd because a remote term seems inconsistent with your own name.' But: i. replacing that by this doesn't help (imagine the conversation is taking place face-to-face). ii. The same problem happens with other people's names: [9] Q: Is McTaggart's name Jim? A: *Yes, that is Jim. 2. You say ' #7 works because "that" refers to the name, not the person'. But in [8], that (or this, if you prefer) is also not referring to a person, and yet [8] just doesn't work. – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 20:40
  • #8: agree, neither term works. "It" would be better. Same with #9. The difference between 7 & 8: in 7, you are referring to "name", an object or concept. In 8, you are referring to the actual name, which represents a person. BTW, the answer in #8 would likely be "that's my name." – fixer1234 Apr 01 '17 at 20:47
  • @fixer1234 isn't it the other way around? In [7], the antecedent of that is Jim, which is an actual name, whereas in [8] it is your/my name, a concept...? – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 20:52
  • There is another reason why "this" or "that" don't work in #8. You could say "that [statement] is correct". In 5, for example, there is an implied "person": "That person is my roommate." "Person" is an abstraction, like an object, and you're saying that "object" is a particular person. In #8, you could answer "My name is Jim" or "It is Jim." #9 is similar. In these, you're talking about a specific person and the name that represents them. In #7, you are talking abstractly about the name as an object. – fixer1234 Apr 01 '17 at 21:10
  • @fixer1234 You say that in [8] and [9], 'you're talking about a specific person and the name that represents them.' I don't see that. [8] and [9], it would seem to me, are entirely about names, not persons. To drive the point home consider this: [10] Q: Is the main theory's name Bootstrapping? A: *Yes, that is. Still no good, despite that fact that now there are definitely no persons here, and everything is names and abstractions – linguisticturn Apr 01 '17 at 21:28
  • Our difference in perception may be that you are looking at what "that" refers to in the question, and I am looking at what it replaces in the answer and the context of the answer. Take #8. "That" refers to "your name", so the answer without any substitution would be "My name is Jim." The sentence is about me and my actual name, which is a representation of me. "That" doesn't work in this context. The answer in #7 without substitution is "Jim is my name". Jim could be in quotes because it is being used here as a word rather than as a substitute for me. (cont'd) – fixer1234 Apr 01 '17 at 21:49
  • "Name" is referring to the concept of a label. That sentence is an abstraction, talking about words and concepts rather than me, personally. So "that" can be used to refer to "Jim" the word. #10 is interesting. True, there is no person involved, yet "that" doesn't work. I'll have to think about why that is the case. – fixer1234 Apr 01 '17 at 21:50
  • The more I think about #10, the more it seems OK. I think the reason is because it is about a concept. – fixer1234 Apr 01 '17 at 21:54
  • To me, A 3 doesn't sound acceptable, unless the questioner is extremely surprised to learn this information, and the answerer is confirming the information with, perhaps, humorous irony. It's a good question, one that I have had at the back of my mind for years without ever getting to grips with it. – Kevin Mark Apr 02 '17 at 03:37
  • I don't think they work in most of the cases. Where is this example from? As Laura Rys says in her answer, better pronouns should be used throughout. – JKreft Jul 29 '18 at 13:16

6 Answers6

1

Since we're always talking about a pronoun here, why not just use the most standard/proper pronouns here and answer the questions as follows:

1Q]: Is E̲x̲x̲o̲n̲ your parent company?.................. [1A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is our parent company. Yes, IT is our parent company.

[2Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲p̲a̲r̲e̲n̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲m̲p̲a̲n̲y̲ Exxon ? [2A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Exxon. So many things I could say here...but I fear I'll diverge too much. Saying, "Yes, THAT is Exxon" is just a horribly phrased answer in general.

[3Q]: Is A̲l̲e̲x̲ her father?......................................... [3A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is her father. Yes, he is her father.

[4Q]: Is h̲e̲r̲ ̲f̲a̲t̲h̲e̲r̲ Alex? [4A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Alex. Yes, HE is her father.

[5Q]: Is t̲h̲e̲ ̲t̲a̲l̲l̲ ̲F̲r̲e̲n̲c̲h̲ ̲d̲u̲d̲e̲ your roommate? ..... [5A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is my roommate. Yes, HE is my roommate.

[6Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲r̲o̲o̲m̲m̲a̲t̲e̲ a tall French dude? [6A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is a tall French dude. Definitely not an acceptable answer. -- But why wouldn't one answer this way: "Yes, HE is / Yes, HE is a tall French dude.

[7Q]: Is J̲i̲m̲ your name?......................................... [7A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is my name. This answer is actually the most acceptable, for once.

[8Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Jim? [8A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Jim. Yes, IT is. / Yes, IT is Jim.

[9Q]: Is M̲c̲T̲a̲g̲g̲a̲r̲t̲'̲s̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Jim? .......................... [9A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Jim. Yes, IT is. / Yes, HIS name is Jim.

[10Q] Is t̲h̲e̲ ̲m̲a̲i̲n̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲o̲r̲y̲'̲s̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Bootstrapping? [10A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Bootstrapping. Again, why not just use the proper pronoun? It's a pretty long explanation to write out the reason(s) behind why using "that" and "he/it/she/etc." are different, bust just think of all the instances in which you would use "that" as the most acceptable/proper word. "That" tends to have a distance to it; that tends have the sense of being "other" (if you get what I mean by the phrase "being other"). And then, of course, when referring to other types of pronouns, "that" just doesn't work at all.

Bravo for an interesting question though. I do hope that someone who not as lazy as I am will come around and explain it in further detail, but I have it's Friday evening and I'd prefer to be eating dinner than sitting here and continuing to go down this rabbit hole. Please don't feel ill will towards me for THAT -- haha!

Laura Rys
  • 11
0

The difference between an acceptable answer and an unacceptable answer in this case is that the word "that" is differentiating the question's subject from everything else. If there's no doubt, it may natively be replaced with any of a number of simple affirmative statements that do not repeat the subject:

  1. "That's right."
  2. "You are correct."
  3. "Uh-huh."
  4. "Yep."
  5. "That's him."
  6. "That's me."

Consider what is being implied by the answer to each question:

  1. Yes, that is [definitely] our parent company.
  2. Yes, that is [the correct] "Exxon".
  3. Yes, that is her father [and not somebody else].
  4. Yes, that [and no one else] is Alex [, her father].
  5. Yes, that [guy] is my roommate.
  6. Yes, that is [the only] tall French dude [who is my roommate].
  7. Yes, that is my name [; don't wear it out].
  8. Yes, that is [the] Jim [you're speaking to].
  9. Yes, that is [the only] Jim [here].
  10. Yes, that is [the] "bootstrapping" [we're discussing].

Because the answers only restate the subject of the question as an object, the original answers don't add any new information other than the affirmation, even though they're a long answer to the question. However, the structure implies things, because the restatement is unnecessary if there's no need for clarification or disambiguation.

A quick check for acceptability might be if the meaning and implication of the original answer means the same thing as a simple affirmation. If it does, the phrase says what it means. If it doesn't, the phrase only means what it says (and is likely unacceptable).

lirmont
  • 1,293
  • Thank you for your answer, but I'm not sure I understand it. Why, according to your thinking, is [8A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Jim. unacceptable? In particular: 1. Isn't it the case here (just as it is in [7A]) that that is 'differentiating the question's subject from everything else'? 2. Isn't it the case here (just as it is in [7A]) that 'the meaning and implication of the original answer means the same thing as a simple affirmation'? – linguisticturn Apr 28 '17 at 15:20
  • First names are not unique in the general context of speech. Nevertheless, if we ask for confirmation of someone's name with: "Is your name [, as opposed to anyone else's name,] Jim?" We are asking them to differentiate their person from everyone else, but can they in the context? Certainly not in a list of every living person, but maybe in the context of a coffee shop, writing names on plastic cups to identify customers. The general case is the former, meaning that the question and answer pair usually does not mean what it says (and would be unacceptable). – lirmont Apr 28 '17 at 20:12
0

I think the point is that that refers to someone or something that has already been specifically identified. By contrast, it can refer to something we mentioned but haven't yet established who or what exactly we are referring to. In your examples 1, 3, 5, and 7, that refers to concrete, specific entities: Exxon, Alex, the tall French dude (the article the is important here), "Jim". The other examples sound bad because that is trying to refer to something whose identity has not yet been established.

I think your 6Q is an instructive example. If you've never met my roommate when you're asking it, it's not yet clear what person is being referred to by your roommate. That is, you don't know who my roommate is. So answering with that doesn't feel right. If you're in my house pointing to my roommate when you ask it, he has been identified, and it's a lot more natural for me to say "yes, that's a tall French dude."

DanStronger
  • 101
-1

1Q]: Is E̲x̲x̲o̲n̲ your parent company?.................. [1A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is our parent company. This acceptable but not necessarily the best answer

[2Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲p̲a̲r̲e̲n̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲m̲p̲a̲n̲y̲ Exxon ? [2A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Exxon. Not acceptable

[3Q]: Is A̲l̲e̲x̲ her father?......................................... [3A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is her father. Acceptable and probably the strongest answer

[4Q]: Is h̲e̲r̲ ̲f̲a̲t̲h̲e̲r̲ Alex? [4A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Alex. This acceptable but not necessarily the best answer

[5Q]: Is t̲h̲e̲ ̲t̲a̲l̲l̲ ̲F̲r̲e̲n̲c̲h̲ ̲d̲u̲d̲e̲ your roommate? ..... [5A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is my roommate. This acceptable but not necessarily the best answer

[6Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲r̲o̲o̲m̲m̲a̲t̲e̲ a tall French dude? [6A]: ?Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is a tall French dude. Not acceptable

[7Q]: Is J̲i̲m̲ your name?......................................... [7A]: Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is my name. This acceptable and a tie for the above acceptable answer

[8Q]: Is y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Jim? [8A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Jim. Not acceptable

[9Q]: Is M̲c̲T̲a̲g̲g̲a̲r̲t̲'̲s̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Jim? .......................... [9A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Jim. Not acceptable

[10Q] Is t̲h̲e̲ ̲m̲a̲i̲n̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲o̲r̲y̲'̲s̲ ̲n̲a̲m̲e̲ Bootstrapping? [10A]: *Yes, t̲h̲a̲t̲ is Bootstrapping. This acceptable but not necessarily the best answer

KKHull2013
  • 1
-1

In the example of the "blue rug" and the "Prince symbol," both are adjectives followed by nouns, so I think this is the differentiating point that makes the usage of "that" more acceptable.

Laura Rys
  • 11
  • Do you understand that, in the example of “blue rug”, the antecedent of “that” is “blue” (in contrast to the example of “the Prince symbol”).  So they aren’t really comparable. And, even if they were, how do you reach your conclusion? – Scott - Слава Україні Feb 25 '18 at 02:20
-2
  1. Insert "that" whenever it helps the reading experience. There are a lot of rules about this but generally the rules don't explain the usage. For me, it's a reading issue. If I read the sentence and I have to backtrack to realize that there is a subject being introduced, then I insert "that." I tell my students to do the same. For instance:

"I prefer you to share." In this case, if you read the words "I prefer you" then your brain processes them as an affirmative statement, as in "I would rather have you than someone else." But then you get to the end of the sentence and your brain goes, "oh, wait, this isn't at all saying that the speaker "prefers" someone." But if you rewrite it with "that" then there isn't the reading confusion: "I prefer that you share." See? by introducing "that" you reduce the confusion and prevent the reader from having to re-read the sentence (or listener from having to adjust their course of processing).

  1. Worry less about "that" and stop writing with dummy pronouns/ambiguous referents. Generally, the issue would be solved by just not using ambiguous referents such as "it" or they" rather than inserting "that" for clarity.

So, if we look at the example from above, rather than worrying about "Yes, that is my roommate." Just say" "Yes, Jim is my roommate."

  1. Use "that" like a modal--to signal alternate states of reality. It doesn't make sense to delineate usages of "that" according to the status of the subject because "that" can also be used to introduce alternate states of being--similar to a modal--for example "...that I were a better person." or "...such that doing so would change the future."
RhetoricLee Speaking
  • 1