.png){kind=icon}
Return
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
En 中文
Although many writers depend on guidelines for help in using language properly and effectively, those guidelines typically lack empirical justification and, as a result, are sometimes oversimplified or even misconceived. In this article, we illustrate this point by examining the guideline that tells writers not to use the existential, or “empty,” there. A 100,000-word survey of good writing shows that expert writers apparently ignore this guideline. Using a discourse-sensitive form of linguistic analysis, we explain why these violations of the rule occur. Expert writers use there for important linguistic and rhetorical purposes: to assert existence, to present new information, to introduce topics, and to summarize. Based on our findings, we claim that there is little justification for having a prescriptive rule against the existential there. We argue further that the methodology employed here, which relies on quantitative and qualitative analysis rather than on conventional wisdom, can and should be extended to other handbook rules.
Journal
No journal information available
Organization
No organization information available
Cited Papers
No cited papers available