Use of Nonstandard Reduplicative Copula Is Is
by Speakers of English in the Upper Midwest
by
Abigail Bakke, Erik Kornkven, et al.
UND, Grand Forks
Introduction
Purpose
The nonstandard grammatical construction is is (sometimes
referred to in the literature as ISIS or 2B), considered a widespread trait of
contemporary speech, consists
of a noun phrase beginning with a sentence topic word like “thing,”
“point,” or “fact,”
then the word is twice and often the word that, and a finite clause (e.g., “The
thing is is that he forgot to call her”). David Tuggy claims that this construction
“exists in the
grammatical systems of many speakers of American English” (720). Likewise,
Michael Shapiro and Michael Haley document occurrences in political speech, interviews,
and a soap opera (305) and Patrick McConvell reports that businesspeople, journalists,
and high school and college students have used it even in prepared or scripted
speech (qtd. in
Coppock, Brenier, Staum, and Michaelis 2).
The research concerning the is is construction has
been limited to studies which
primarily investigate the function of the repetition. These studies seek to put
the
reduplicative copula in syntactical context and to explore the functions it provides
for
both speaker and listener. Functions reported by researchers include production,
comprehension, connection, interaction (Tannen 576), and focus formulas (expressions
meant to draw listeners’ attention to the forthcoming words) (Tuggy 724-26).
Moreover,
Shapiro and Haley argue that the is is creates “syntactic tension
and semantic
anticipation” (307) and Coppock et al. conclude that it is “licensed
primarily in the
introduction of assertions” (9). One researcher, Gisle Andersen, did examine
instances of
the “is is” construction both on the Internet and in the British
National Corpus. While
more complete than the other articles in that it examines data collected from
a certain
population, this article focuses on a geographic area other than and broader than
what we
wish to investigate and it does not provide the most recent understanding of “is
is” use.
Because few researchers of the nonstandard reduplicative copula
have reported
research geared toward any specific populations, their reported data could be
viewed as
incomplete with regard to age, geographic location, educational background, and
gender.
Not only is the research incomplete, but scholarly research on this topic seems
to have
peaked in the 1990s and early 2000s. Andersen wrote in 2002: “the double
copula
construction has not been subject to much previous research and I have found no
previous
publications” (48), although he acknowledges Tuggy’s paper. Recent
sources on the
reduplicative copula include many informal language-related blog posts, but no
formal
academic studies.
Is the is is feature common to speakers of English
in the upper Midwest United
States in 2009, and does its usage vary significantly by age or gender? The purpose
of the
present study is to investigate the occurrence of the reduplicative copula is
is and to
determine if the usage of the repetition adheres to the hypotheses put forward
by Tuggy,
Tannen, Shapiro and Haley, and Coppock et al. in a specific population, and to
provide
an updated understanding of is is usage. This study seeks to add to the
current scholarship
by providing data about the frequency, function and perception of the reduplicative
copula in male and female speakers in the upper Midwest. This study also compares
speakers’ perceptions of why is is is used against speakers’
actual usage in guided
conversations. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the non-standard reduplicative
copula
is is emerges when speakers are making a point or assertion. As detailed
in our results
and discussion sections, our findings largely supported the original hypothesis.
Nearly all
the instances recorded for this study involved making assertions, with a few exceptions.
However, the limited usage by the study participants does not allow for any definitive
generalizations with regard to the demographics studied, beyond the conclusion
that it is
a widespread feature in this region.
Literature Review
The is is phenomenon
is an example of linguistic reduplication, which, in
general, can be defined as “a repetition of sound strings” (Kajitani
93). Reduplication
occurs in many of the world’s languages, with greatly differing purposes,
from creating
plurals in Indonesian to intensification in Turkish (Kajitani 95-99). Although
reduplication occurs in English as well, according to Ghomeshi et al., “it
has rarely been
cited as a grammatical phenomenon of English” (308). Ghomeshi et al. list
six types of
reduplication in English, among them baby-talk (e.g., choo-choo), rhyme combinations
(e.g., super-duper), and intensive reduplication (e.g., “You are sick sick
sick!”) (309).
While they describe these different functions of reduplication in English, they
do not mention the reduplicative copula.
Linguistic research investigating the reduplicative copula
is incomplete and
primarily anecdotal in terms of specific demographic groups that use it. Tannen
draws on
the work of discourse analyst M.A.K. Halliday in investigating the connections
between
repetition, conversation and literary discourse, and reports that repetitions
of all varieties,
not just the reduplicative copula is is, function in production, comprehension,
connection,
and interaction of spoken English (576). These four functions provide an overarching
coherence which assists both the speaker and audience participation in “sense-making”
(Tannen 575). Halliday, in An Introduction to Functional Grammar, explains that
cohesion, similar to coherence, is “establishing relations within the text”
(288), and he
states that repetition is one way to create this lexical continuity in a text
(289). The
functions of the specific type of repetition is is fall into Tannen’s
two categories of
comprehension and connection. There are two specific advantages gained by speakers
using the is is repetition. Comprehension is improved because repetition
provides for a
“semantically less dense discourse” (Tannen 582), thus allowing for
the listener to absorb
what has already been said, while preparing to listen closely to what follows.
Connection
between conversants is strengthened because the repetition evidences the speaker’s
emphasis, which intensifies both the repetition and the following utterance. Tannen
concludes that repetition of all kinds is relatively automatic and pervasive in
oral
communication, and that such repetition serves to bolster interpersonal involvement
in
the on-going dialogue (601).
Tuggy, using the Cognitive Grammar model, examines the 2-B
construction for
schema (715), full and partial sanction (718), and 2-B prototype (720). Tuggy’s
findings
reveal that, when separated from “stuttering, hesitation or other repetitive
errors” (728),
at the center of 2-B usage is the “Focus Formula (FF)” function (724).
Tuggy defines FFs
as “expressions which are well established in the language (thus ‘formulas’),
whose
primary function is to focus attention on structures they are attached to”
(724). Thus, the
repeated is is less than fully verbal, and can disappear as a syntactical
unit of meaning:
“The thing is is such a strongly entrenched, automatic unit, that
it is easy for speakers to
bring it out from their minds as a unit, even before they have figured out what
they want
to say next” (725). Among Tuggy’s conclusions is the sense that the
2-B has become
established in the grammar of many speakers of American English. Although Tuggy
asserts that the 2-B construction is “limited in its geographical distribution…
[and that]
there may be social differentiations,” he does not report specific 2-B data
collected from
guided conversations (714). However, he does report personal observations of the
2-B
construction from men and women from diverse backgrounds, in ages ranging from
childhood to 80 years. Tuggy also reports that many speakers who use the 2-B
construction, when queried about using it, will consider it grammatically incorrect
(774).
Andersen’s conclusions align with Tuggy’s; he claims
that speakers use is is as a
focusing construction to “add focus to the information-rich parts of the
utterance, at the
same time constituting apt strategies for buying processing time while planning
the main
content of the utterance” (43).
Shapiro and Haley also analyze the reduplicative copula’s
function as a delay
which “creates syntactic tension and semantic anticipation” (307).
Their findings
emphasize the dual role of nominalization and conjunction of the that which usually
follows the is is construction, as in: “What I’ve said is
is that…” (306). The that which
follows the is is construction is actually the “expanded or multiword
subordinate
conjunction”: is that (311). This coincides with Tuggy’s analysis
of the 2-B construction
as a single syntactical, FF unit (724).
Coppock et al. in their 2006 conference presentation “ISIS:
It’s Not Disfluent, But
How Do We Know That?” argue that both Tuggy’s and Shapiro and Haley’s
analyses are
lacking because those analyses presuppose that the reduplicative copula is a grammatical
construction of English, when in fact no studies had ruled out the possibility
that it is
merely a repetition disfluency. Therefore, Coppock et al. examined multiple instances
of
is is from the Fisher English Training Speech corpus and determined that
the
reduplicative copula is in fact a grammatical English construction rather than
a
widespread disfluency. They also found that the construction appeared “primarily
in the
introduction of assertions” (9).
Mark Liberman in the 2004 Language Log blog post titled “The
thing is is people
talk this way” argues against the reduplicative copula as a simple production
error.
Liberman asserts that instead of speaking incorrectly, those who use the reduplicative
copula are “producing phrases that are grammatical—in terms of a non-standard
grammar” (1). This is in line with the observations made by Tuggy, Tannen,
and Shapiro
and Haley, which point to the is is construction as a functional unit of
speech. Although
the reduplicative copula is not recognized as a written standard, and while some
scholars
such as Liberman consider it “stigmatized” even when spoken, it is
nevertheless accepted
and utilized by speakers of all educational backgrounds.
Although the is is pattern seems to have begun as a
feature unique to speech, it is
starting to appear more frequently in written contexts, in keeping with the linguistic
principle that “speech is primary, writing is secondary and is always derivative
of
speech” (“What is Linguistics?”). In 1996, Tuggy predicted:
“I have not observed it in
written communication, though I would be surprised not to do so soon” (714).
In keeping
with Tuggy’s prediction, Andersen, in 2002, has witnessed it in not only
speech but also
in writing, which he cites as evidence for the fact that “the repeated instance
of is is is not
as haphazard and random as spelling mistakes or hesitational features” (45).
An Internet
search engine yields many examples of the is is in writing, typically in
the context of blog
posts or comments. Example (1) comes from a science-related blog; (2) is from
a
comment in response to an online newspaper article; (3) is a comment from a discussion
group in a social networking website.
(1) The key point is is that unless a thesis (or any
publication) explicitly carries a
license (or possibly a site meta-license) actually stating that it is BOAI compliant,
then I
cannot re-use it (Petermr).
(2) The thing is, is that while all us college students
(go UW!) hate the tuition
spikes, none of us want to give up the libraries, or the computer systems that
need manning, or the nice gyms (Cavecche).
(3) Well the thing is with MSUM is
that it is so small that most times they end up
on the sidewalk of the street (Hertel).
Andersen notes that, as in example (2), “Internet users
commonly insert a comma
between the two tokens of is in the double copula construction,” possibly
because “the
writer uses the comma as a way of preventing the erroneous interpretation that
the double
copula is a spelling mistake” (56). In example (3), Hertel interrupts the
reduplicative
copula with the prepositional phrase “with MSUM,” showing one variation
on the
nonstandard reduplicative copula. According to Andersen, who found the most tokens
of
the reduplicative copula in chat rooms and discussion boards during his Internet
research,
“many types of Internet texts are produced on the fly by users who have
little time to
ponder over the use of particular ways of expression” (44). Perhaps instances
of the is is
are easier to find in computer-mediated contexts than in print because the generally
more
casual nature of internet communication is closer to speech than a published print
work,
although, as Andersen notes, the internet “represents the whole continuum
from ‘virtually
spoken’ to ‘virtually published.’” He also notes that
this characteristic of the Internet
makes it a useful corpus for researching new linguistic features (45).
Beyond the scholarly research surrounding this phenomenon,
the public’s
continuing interest in the reduplicative copula, while not overwhelming, is evident
from
several writers of linguistics-themed blogs who have commented on it in the past
few
years and especially in the past year. On the Language Log, Liberman states that,
“though
stigmatized, [it] is widely used by highly educated people” (3). It is interesting
that while
the is is pattern is nonstandard English, Liberman believes this reduplicative
copula is
often used by those who have a higher education.
However, other bloggers have come to quite different conclusions
on the is is
phenomenon. The Grammarphobia Blog hypothesizes that the double “is”
is completely
accidental and happens when people stutter, forget that they have already said
the verb
“is” and thus repeat “is” again (O’Conner and Kellerman)
According to another blogger
(Taradiddle), the is is copula is a part of careless speech, which seems
to contradict the
notion that more highly educated people would use this form of dialect. Finally,
one
blogger who does not understand why the reduplicative copula is used states that,
“It’s
unnecessary. It’s annoying. And well, it’s just plain wrong!”
(Suclarke). This strong
criticism of the feature supports Liberman’s claim that this feature is
stigmatized. H.P.
Grice’s conversational principles provide some insight into why some people
stigmatize
the reduplicative copula. Grice offers explanations for the choices people make
during
conversation (quality, quantity, relation and manner). He suggests that participants
in a
conversation “expect your contribution to be neither more nor less than
is required.”
While he does not address the reduplicative copula specifically, his work does
shed light
on the reasons some people find the reduplicative copular to be annoying or unnecessary:
it violates the maxim of “be brief” (125).
Speakers who stigmatize the reduplicative copula do not recognize
the
argumentative, declarative function of the reduplicative copula. However, the
use of
phrases to mark pragmatic information occurs in other languages as well. In Danish
and
Norwegian, certain adverbs “lend a special shade to the meaning of the whole
sentence.”
For example, the Norwegian adverb vel can add the connotation of “hesitant
supposition”
to a sentence (Marm and Sommerfelt 95). Other Norwegian adverbs can “express
the
speaker’s conviction concerning the truth of the statement, and also his
emotional attitude
toward it or the listener” (Haugen and Chapman 303). The reduplicative copula
can
exhibit this same quality of adding pragmatic information to a sentence; Andersen
claims
that the reduplicative copula can indicate “a personal belief or opinion
of the speaker”
(51).
Methods
This study used three methods—guided conversations,
recorded lectures, and
surveys—to gather data about the is is feature and demographic groups
that commonly
use it. The guided conversations were meant to elicit natural is is usage
so that we could
examine the contexts and purposes for which it was used. The surveys, which were
given
to the participants of the guided conversations, were meant to provide data about
participants’ experiences, beliefs, and attitudes pertaining to the reduplicative
copula. The
recorded lectures provided us with several more examples of is is usage
for further
analysis of the grammatical contexts in which it appears.
Data Collection Techniques
Guided Conversations. The main research method was
guided conversations, a
data collection technique developed by sociolinguist William Labov. Goals of the
guided
conversation include prompting participants to use the speech styles natural to
their
communities, allowing participants to engage in conversation primarily among
themselves and not the researchers, and allowing participants to raise topics
that interest
them (Labov 32-33).
In keeping with these objectives, guided conversations were
used to elicit the
reduplicative copula in natural conversation. Results could be affected if participants
were constantly aware their speech was being observed, a phenomenon known as the
“observer’s paradox,” identified by Labov. In order to lessen
the effect of the observer’s
paradox, the guided conversation attempts to involve participants to the degree
that they
“forget” they are being recorded (Labov 30).
We conducted six guided conversations with approximately 4
participants each,
totaling 23 participants. The researchers, through their education or occupation,
knew all
participants chosen for the study. Although participants were primarily chosen
based on
familiarity with the researchers, attempts were made to draw from a broad sample
of
demographic backgrounds. Seventeen of the participants were undergraduate students
at
North Dakota State University, and six of the participants were not currently
students at
NDSU but had been college educated. Participants ranged in age from the teens
to the
50s. Fourteen males and nine females were recorded.
Participants in this study were not informed as to the particular
language feature
under consideration (in keeping with the guidelines of guided conversations);
however,
they were aware the study required recorded segments of natural conversation.
The
consent form used to inform participants of guided conversation parameters can
be found
in Appendix A.
Conversations and lectures were recorded with either a handheld
voice recorder or
a laptop computer with Apple’s Garage Band program, and instances of the
reduplicative
copula were transcribed. Guided conversations lasted from a half hour to an hour,
and
were held in locations where there was little chance of interruption.
The conversations began with the researchers posing questions
that pertained to
something appropriate for the group, for example, religion or their own studies.
These
topics were chosen to provide participants several opportunities to construct
arguments
and make points, the hypothesized contexts of is is use. In one guided
conversation,
participants were asked to describe their chemistry research in case the context
of
explaining complex topics would elicit is is use. In most of the guided
conversations,
participants were acquainted with each other, so they were able to carry the conversation
with little prompting from the researchers.
Any tangents that seemed particularly controversial among
the group members
were followed up by further questions. The types of questions asked were similar
to:
“Which candidate do you support and why?” and “Do you feel that
college students are
sufficiently prepared to enter the work world? Why or why not?” For more
sample
questions for guided conversations, see Appendix B.
Surveys. The second method of data collection involved
issuing an anonymous
exit survey to the participants of the guided conversations. Participants were
given a label
consisting of a number and a letter in order to link their speech to their survey
answers
while keeping their identities anonymous. We requested basic demographic information
(gender, age, hometown, level of education, occupation) and asked four simple,
openended
questions in order to understand to what people attribute the is is construction.
Questions on the survey asked whether or not participants
had heard the is is feature used
and under what circumstances, why they thought people used it, and how they reacted
when they heard it. These questions were directed at determining attitudes about
the
reduplicative copula among college students. Questions were also formulated to
compare
subjects’ self-reported results with data from the guided conversations.
A copy of the
questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.
Recorded Lectures.
The final method of data collection
came from four
recorded lectures of a professor of religion and history at North Dakota State
University.
The professor whose lectures were recorded was chosen on the basis of his frequent
use
of the nonstandard reduplicative copula. This method was chosen to provide the
researchers with more instances of the reduplicative copula in context. Approximately
three hours’ worth of speech was recorded. As with the guided conversation
participants,
the professor was aware that a certain verbal feature was being observed, but
was not
aware of what it was. At the conclusion of the recording, the professor was given
the
same survey as the guided conversation participants and his answers are included
in the
survey results.
Analytical Methods
By examining the context
of each repeated is, we distinguished the nonstandard
reduplicative copula from forms which are considered correct according to prescriptive
grammar and from stuttering or verbal hesitation. For example, the following
sentence exemplifies a usage of the reduplicative copula that aligns with the
rules of prescriptive
grammar: “What you think God is is the value structure that forms
and shapes your world.” In this case, the clause “What you think God is” makes
up the complete subject
and the second “is” functions as the main verb. We also ignored instances
of the repeated
is that occurred as a result of stuttering. For example, one speaker uttered,
“How do we
know whether… in the Catholic church… is is open to modern
day revelation, um, and and that’s handled through the Vatican.” The speaker stops and restarts
his sentence,
inserts the filler word “um,” and repeats the word “and,” suggesting
hesitancy. Additionally, the is is here does not follow the
typical form of the nonstandard
reduplicative copula, in which the copula is followed by a “that”-clause.
In assessing whether our recorded examples of is is
use functioned in making an
assertion as our hypothesis predicted, we used Coppock et al.’s definition
that in the
assertive category, “the is is sequence precedes a declarative clause”
(5), while “[a]uthors
never present ISIS in predicative sentences (e.g., “John is (is) happy”)
(4). Similarly,
Princeton University’s WordNet Database offers a more specific definition
of assertion as
“a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were
necessary)”
(“Assertion”). The part of the definition most meaningful for our
analysis is the word
“emphatically”—a characteristic displayed in the following example
from our data: “The
point of the matter is is that God loves us because it’s our nature
to love—very powerful
stuff.” Here, the addition of “very powerful stuff” to the end
of the declaration implies
that the speaker considers his point to be important.
Results
In four out of six guided conversations and in four of four
recorded lectures, the
nonstandard reduplicative copula was heard. We found a total of 13 instances of
the
nonstandard is is: five in our guided conversations and eight from recorded
lectures. In
five of the instances, speakers used no “that” following the is
is. To see all examples of
the reduplicative copula in context, see Appendix D. Two women and four men used
it,
all of whom currently live in the Fargo, ND/Moorhead, MN region. It was heard
in
subjects as diverse as a 21-year old man, a 23-year old woman, a 45-year old woman,
and
a 79-year old man.
The survey answers also yielded interesting results to supplement
our
observations during the guided conversations. The questions, and a summary of
the
answers received from the participants, are as follows:
1) Have you heard anyone use the “is, is” language
feature before? If so, describe
the context in which you have heard it.
Only 10% of people surveyed responded with never having heard
or taken notice
of is is before. Out of the majority that did recognize it, 5% didn’t
remember the
situation, 10% felt it was used to fill silence while thinking (e.g., “I
think people use the
repeated words as a sort of filler”), and 60% remembered it being used to
explain an idea,
often in a debate or argument setting. For example: “The person/people were
arguing
about something that they felt very strongly about—I myself do it often
when I am trying
to make a point.”
Table 1 shows a summary of the responses [to Question
1], with all percentages rounded to the nearest whole percent. [see p. 9 of
the pdf document]
2) Are you aware of yourself ever using this feature of
language? Do you use the
feature purposely or unconsciously?
Fourteen percent of people responded that they had not consciously
used the
construction and 40% responded that they had, but were unaware of the situation
or if it
was intentional or not.
Out of participants who were conscious of the construction,
19% responded that
they remember using it when they were engaged in conversation and needed time
to think
or had lost track of their words and used it to get back on track, for example,
“I usually
don’t aim to use it, but if I end up down a word choice path and get lost,
it will become
part of my words” and “Maybe if I pause too long.”
Fourteen percent of the participants have used it, then realized
that it was
incorrect after having said it, as shown by the response “I only realize
it in situations
when I know I shouldn’t – like interviews.”
Lastly, 14% claimed to have used it purposefully in an attempt
to explain
something: “I used it on purpose to explain why a certain event occurred
and why the
event occurred at all.”
Table 2 summarizes the responses to Question 2 [see
p. 10 of the pdf document].
3. Why do people use the is is construction?
As shown in Table 3, 4% didn’t know while 19% responded
that the speaker
likely picked it up after hearing someone else use it, for example: “It
is common here…”
and “Creates a statement people have heard in the same context before.”
One attributed it
to “lazy speech.”
Four percent of surveys showed the opinion that the feature
occurred when in
explanation, as in, “I could see people using the ‘is is’
feature of language when they are
in deep discussion making many comments in a short amount of time.”
Four percent felt that “…it’s used more
as a unit of emphasis.”
Half of respondents thought that the is is was simply
verbal filler that allows the
speaker to reorganize their thoughts as in, “Maybe they get stuck on their
sentences like I
do” and “Perhaps they use it to stall their thought process when they
are trying to get
their point across, such as the word, ‘um.’”
Table 3: Summary of Answers to Question 3 [see
p. 10 of the pdf document]
4) How do you react when you hear it?
As shown in Table 4, 75% of respondents react neutrally to
the is is, shown by responses such as, “It’s common enough
that I accept it” and “I notice it but ignore it.”
Only one person commented negatively with “I will probably
correct myself every time I do it from now because it sounds silly” and
one person viewed it in a positive light: “I would take that person seriously
because it makes it feel like they are trying to express something important
and they want their attention.”
Table 4: Summary of Answers to Question 4 [see
p. 11 of the pdf document]
Discussion
We compared our collected data against these theories surrounding
the subject:
Shapiro and Haley’s idea of syntactic tension, Tuggy’s Focus Formula
(FF) theory,
Tannen’s idea of repetition serving to increase comprehension within group
discourse,
and Coppock et al.’s conclusion that the is is happens when making
assertions. For the
most part, our recorded instances followed these grammatical frameworks; however,
there were some notable exceptions. This varied usage serves as a reminder that,
while
there has been some research about the reduplicative copula, understanding its
use
remains uncertain. We also explored the incongruities between our subjects’
written
responses to the survey questions regarding the is is feature, and the
ways in which they
actually used it in the guided conversations. Finally, we identify areas where
further
research is needed.
Syntactic Tension
Shapiro and Haley argue that the is is feature
serves as a delay which “creates
syntactic tension and semantic anticipation (306). They also explain its relationship
with
the is that grammatical feature which they call an “expanded or multiword
subordinate
conjunction” (311). This delay is not defined by pauses in speech, but by
the speakers’
waiting to present the point until the end of the sentence: “since it is
precisely the targeted
argument that finally relieves the tension and fulfills this anticipation, it
gets strong
climactic emphasis” (307). This explanation is in line with Tuggy’s
description of
focusing constructions, which “often achieve their purpose by lengthening
a relatively
short construction to which the speaker wishes to direct attention. The slight
lengthening
produced by a 2-B in comparison with a 1-B, and the repetition of the word is,
may be
intended to focus attention more strongly on what follows” (739). Example
(1) fits this hypothesis.
(1) “He votes more liberal… but I feel like the
reason is is I think that Obama
unifies the country more than Hillary does.”
Here, the speaker punctuates his argument with qualifiers
like “I feel like” and “I
think that.” Although the insertion of qualifiers could be interpreted as
lack of
confidence, they do serve to draw out the first clause, perhaps placing even more
emphasis on the targeted argument in keeping with Shapiro and Haley’s explanation
of
“delay of closure and end focus on a targeted argument” (310).
Focus Formula
Tuggy argues that constructions
like the “The thing is is that” act as a “focus
formula” or an “expression which [is] well established in the language,
whose primary
function is to focus attention on structures they are attached to” (724).
Among other
examples of focus formulas Tuggy lists are it seems to me (that), listen to this,
and in fact.
He says that a construction with the reduplicative copula is “about as pure
an FF as there
is: its only function is to focus attention on the following clause” (725).
While Shapiro
and Haley describe a syntactic tension or delay for emphasis, Tuggy describes
a similar
function of language which “focuses attention on a following clausal structure” (724).
Our examples of the is is patterns were preceded by
such words as reason, part,
question, thing, and point. Each of these words signals that a particular singular
thought
is to follow. In this sense, they all serve as focus formulas in that they draw
attention to
the following point. Example (2) shows is is used as a focus formula.
(2) Roman Catholics view that Eucharist is a gift –
but the Pietists will say that
you can go to Eucharist too much; they don’t look at the church as a God
given thing.
Still, the point of the matter is is that for the whole 1600 years up till
the point of Pietism
it has been the focal point of religion – trying to help people become Christian
who don’t
even go to church.
Here, the speaker explains a specific example (“the
Pietists will say that you can
go to Eucharist too much; they don’t look at the church as a God given thing”),
then
alerts the listener to the overall significance of that example (“it has
been the focal point
of religion”) by preceding it with the focus formula “the point of
the matter is is that.”
Comprehension
While syntactic emphasis is at
the core of both Shapiro and Haley’s and Tuggy’s
explanations, Tannen argues that the is is function falls under a specific
type of repetition that improves comprehension in a conversation by providing
a “semantically
less dense
discourse” that eases the listener’s transition between what has
been said and what is to
come (575). Example (3) represents a clear and successful usage.
(3) “…so…I just don’t know, maybe
they would but…I just don’t know if they’d
ever go through with any of that, and part of it is is the people of the
United States right
now, the large majority of them want to be out. And if I’m a politician
and I can tell
people that we’ll be out in 24 months, I will.”
The speaker could have eliminated “and part of it is
is,” but that construction
seems to be used consciously to clarify the statement and, in keeping with Tannen’s
theory, lengthen the discourse into something less dense to ease the listener
into the next
phrase.
Our data showed that, though the feature may be used as a
simplifying feature, it
does not always translate into a more easily understandable phrase. For instance,
in
example (4), the speaker does make the utterance less dense in accordance with
Tannen’s
theory of comprehension, but fails to ease the listener into the final phrase,
because he
has not fully formulated it. Thus, this statement does not exemplify a successful
use of
repetition to enhance the listener’s comprehension.
(4) “Modern medicine is there for a reason, our bodies
can’t fix it…so the point is
is that… cognizance won’t have…cognizance…knowledge
it just won’t have…”
The speaker tries to use the is is feature to lead
up to a clear point, but is not able
to gather his thoughts quickly enough to sustain the conversation. In this respect,
the
reduplicative copula serves the purpose of not only the syntactic tension that
Shapiro and
Haley describe, but also a delay in which the speaker endeavors to clarify his
thoughts,
though it was executed unsuccessfully in this case.
Assertion
Although Coppock et al.’s study was never published,
we did want to test the
validity of their conclusion that the reduplicative copula is “licensed
primarily in the
introduction of assertions,” (9), which they define as “a declarative
clause” (5). Example
(5) shows an is is used preceding a declaration.
(5) What sticks out in my mind is is you go to a one
world currency, you go to a
one world religion.
The speaker makes an authoritative declaration in if-then
form (“[If] you go to a
one world currency, [then] you go to a one world religion”). The use of
the reduplicative
copula for emphasis seems also to coincide with Tuggy’s and Shapiro and
Haley’s
theories but the construction is unique in that, in place of a word like “point”
or “thing,”
the speaker uses “What sticks out in my mind.”
Example (6) does not match Coppock et al.’s claim that
the is is occurs prior to declarative clauses. They state that “authors
never present ISIS in predicative sentences (e.g. John is (is) happy)” (4),
though example (6) appears to be an exception to this rule.
(6) What turned the bishop on is is the coming of indulgences.
The is is functions like a typical linking verb, with
“the coming of indulgences”
renaming “What turned the bishop on.” In this case, the is is
was uttered fluently,
suggesting that it was not a repetition error. The speaker may be so familiar
with using
the reduplicative copula in assertive contexts that it seemed acceptable to transfer
the
usage to a much less common construction.
Based on our data, the is is often preceded not simply
declarations but
declarations meant to be persuasive. The speakers’ choices of sentence topic
words like
“point” and variations on that such as “what sticks out in my
mind” suggest a rhetorical
strategy of positioning themselves within an argument and drawing attention to
their
view. An example of this persuasive type of assertion occurs when a speaker defends
her
view against another speaker who asks, “Well, first of all, why won’t
[a one-world
currency] benefit the United States?” The speaker responds with “What
sticks out in my
mind is is you go to a one world currency; you go to a one world religion.”
Although this
particular example occurred in the context of a dialogue, the samples from the
recorded
lectures show that use of the is is is not limited to dialogue.
Of all the theories, Tuggy’s focus formula seemed to
be the most applicable to our
data, followed by Shapiro and Haley’s notion of syntactic tension. Although
Tannen’s
explanation for the use of the is is for comprehension and Coppock et al.’s
claim
regarding its use in assertive contexts are also largely applicable, those ideas
seem more
limited in accounting for reasons why speakers use the is is.
Responses to Exit Surveys
We also asked subjects themselves to explain their understanding
of the is is
feature. Just as the examples we gathered fit different uses and theories, so
too did the
responses to the written survey illustrate a variety of ideas that did not always
concur
with the data gathered in the guided conversations.
One of the most noticeable differences occurred when the subjects
were asked to
describe the context in which they had heard the is is feature before.
When asked where
they heard the usage, 60% of participants recalled hearing it in an argument or
debate
setting, yet when asked why they thought it was used, only 14% said it was for
the
purpose of explanation. Half of respondents felt that the real reason for the
use was for
filler, but this notion of the is is feature as a place filler does not
comply with the sense of
purpose that is found in the instances it was used in the guided conversations.
Several
speakers (especially in examples 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7) appeared to use the reduplicative
copula with the purpose of alerting the listener to a clear point. The hesitation
or error
that a place filler implies does not account for the sense-making pattern that
appears in
our gathered examples. Likewise, Tuggy states that “hesitation and especially
stuttering
are relatively minor factors in the sanction of the 2-B… however, it is
worth noting that
they are frequently offered as hypotheses by culprits or witnesses trying to explain
an
instance, erroneous to them, of a 2-B” (729). This could explain why many
of our
participants responded in this way.
All but two of our respondents felt impartial toward the is
is usage. With the only
negative comment being the mild evaluation that it “sounds silly,”
we may assume that,
contradictory to Liberman’s claim that it is stigmatized, there is little
to no stigma against
the usage, at least in this region. In fact, one person responded positively with
“I would
pay attention to that person...” The overall neutral attitude towards the
nonstandard
reduplicative copula seems to be largely due to increased acceptance, which we
can see
from comments like “It’s common here…” and “I just
ignore it.” As people become less
likely to notice it, the usage may spread further.
We found usage from people in their early twenties to a 79-year
old professor;
however, the wide variety of responses indicates that the subjects were aware
of this
feature, whether they noticed it in their own speech or not. This finding coincides
with
Tuggy’s hypothesis that this feature of language transcends age, gender,
and regional
gaps.
Further Areas of Research
While this study illuminated certain aspects of the reduplicative
copula is is, it
also raised new questions to be answered in future research. Our conversations
were all
informal to semi-formal (based on how well participants knew each other), and
further
research would be needed to determine if the is is feature appears in
more formal,
structured conversations. Tuggy observes that “[the] 2-B tends to be avoided
in carefully
planned speech” (714); therefore, if the subjects are given a topic ahead
of time and asked to prepare statements in advance, would the is is feature be as prevalent
as in a
spontaneous conversation? Further research could focus on less frequent variations
on the
is is, including is was and was is. In addition, all the subjects in this
study were college
educated and lived in the same region. A wider pool of subjects may shed light
on the
differences between the perception and use of this feature of language. Such further
study would help to explain the inherent differences between written and spoken
grammar.
This study has supported Andersen’s conclusion that
the reduplicative copula
“appears to be spreading in several dimensions, from the spoken language
to the written
language of the Internet, from American English more generally, and from informal
to
(more) formal contexts” (57). Tuggy wrote that he was interested to see
this “snapshot of
an erroneous construction in the process of achieving grammaticality” (743).
As one
blogger has reported, even President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama
have
used this feature (Suclarke). This reminds us that even those we consider to be
prominent
and highly educated use nonstandard features in their speech. Our results support
they
hypothesis that the reduplicative copula is indeed in the process of becoming
more
common and is meanwhile becoming more widely accepted by speakers of English.
Abstract: p.1, pdf
Document
Works Cited & Appendices
A-D
|