Use of it

Question

" It's not safe here"Is "it" in the above sentence an "anticipatory it" referring to "here", that comes later in the sentence or is it just a "dummy it" referring to a vague object ?

Mr Wordy · Accepted Answer

I interpret it as a dummy "it", needed for grammatical reasons and referring to "the state of affairs".

Compare "It's not safe, this bridge", where "it" is anticipatory.

Rizzy · Answer

I agree with Mr Wordy that it is a dummy pronoun. However, I disagree with him (respectfully!) that it refers to a general state of affairs for the reason that, if it did refer to a state of affairs, it would no longer be a dummy pronoun.

It is required for grammatical purposes.

Avangi · Answer

rizzy if it did refer to a state of affairs

There's a difference between "the state of affairs" and "a state of affairs."

I think MrWordy's definition of "the dummy it" is the commonly accepted one.

What's it like out there? What's the state of affairs out there?

This is a fine state of affairs.

Rizzy · Answer

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. In the sentence in the original question "It's not safe here", "it" is a dummy pronoun, it is true. But, it does not refer to the state of affairs of wherever the deictic pronoun "here" refers. The "It"is required syntactically, but not semantically. Because it's not required semantically, it is a dummy pronoun. As I have said, dummy pronouns cannot refer to a/the state of affairs (whether general or specific) because when they do, they're no longer dummy pronouns.

Of course, on the other hand, you could argue that English doesn't actually have dummy pronouns. That, even in a sentence like the one in the question, or in "it's raining", the "it" does refer to whatever is/are the state of affairs.

Avangi · Answer

The state of affairs here is not safe.

I'm not sure that "I disagree with X because it doesn't comport with my definition of X" is a sound argument. It seems circular.

When someone says, "it's not safe here," would it be proper to inquire, "What's not safe here?"

Could you offer an example where you feel "it" does refer to the state of affairs?

Thanks for your consideration.

Avangi · Answer

Perhaps I'm in over my head.  Perhaps from the point of view of linguistics, "Not safe here" is semantically complete.  Is that your position?  I'm sorry; I don't know the rules.

Rizzy · Answer

"I'm not sure that "I disagree with X because it doesn't comport with my definition of X" is a sound argument. It seems circular."

This would only be right if I hadn't qualified why I don't agree with it, giving as I did, more linguistic information. But, I did qualify it, so it could not possibly be circular :-)

"When someone says, "it's not safe here," would it be proper to inquire, "What's not safe here?""

It would be proper to inquire this. However, remember that pronouns take the place of a noun phrase. What would the noun phrase be in this sentence? Would it be "the state of affairs"? In which case, can one say "The state of affairs is not safe here?" As a native English speaker, that is ungrammatical for me.

My whole point is that when a pronoun doesn't have a semantic function, and is required for syntax purposes only, it is a dummy pronoun. The question is, in "It's not safe here", does "It" refer to a state of affairs? Now for you, it does. But there are linguistic tests that you can do to determine into which class a word falls. The "It" fails these tests for a pronoun. It doesn't actually refer to anything.

I should also say that some linguists, most prominently, DL Bolinger, say what you have said: that "it" refers to a general state of affairs. In which case, it is no longer a dummy pronoun.

I'm sorry if I've brought this discussion into areas in which it didn't belong! :-)

Avangi · Answer

I personally am disinclined to limit discussions   -   to my constant embarrassment. <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Avangi · Answer

rizzyI'm sorry if I've brought this discussion into areas in which it didn't belong!

How else are we to answer the OP's question?

" It's not safe here"
Is "it" in the above sentence an "anticipatory it" referring to "here", that comes later in the sentence or is it just a "dummy it" referring to a vague object ?

He doesn't simply say, "Is it a dummy it ? Yes or no?" He qualifies it (referring to a vague object).
Then MrWordy qualifies it further, with the "state of affairs" expression.
You agree that the term "dummy it" applies, but disagree on its definition.
Surely this is legitimate discourse.
Why do we call it a thread?
(Well, I guess some people feel that if the OP asks a question, there should be no discussion - enter the "verified answer.")

If I've learned nothing else on EF, I've learned that many disparate approaches to grammatical analysis are alive and well. But on first blush, Linguistics seems to enjoy a special stature. It's assertions seem to be integrated, like those of classical geometry.

But there are linguistic tests that you can do to determine into which class a word falls. The "It" fails these tests for a pronoun. It doesn't actually refer to anything.

Is it fair to bring a linguistics test to a non-linguistics argument?

When you say, "It doesn't actually refer to anything," shouldn't you specify "anything in the sentence?"
What does the OP mean by "just a 'dummy it' referring to a vague object?" Where would he come up with something like this? Couldn't this be akin to MrWordy's "state of affairs"?

In your references to Linguistics, you carefully separate "grammatical purposes" and "semantic purposes." It seems to me that this breaks down in many idioms, in which the semantic purpose has no roots in the grammatical purpose whatsoever. When we hear X we automatically think Y.
Why can't "It's raining" work like an idiom? When we hear it, we automatically think "state of affairs"? Doesn't this constitute a "semantic purpose/function"?

Perhaps our failure is failure to distinguish between the grammatical "refers" and the semantic "refers."
Why can't a word or an expression "refer" to an idea we have in our head, as a native speaker, or one who is conversant with the language - as in the case of idioms?

When MrWordy says, " it refers to the state of affairs," why can't it mean something like, "It's supposed to make us think of the state of affairs"?

if it did refer to a state of affairs, it would no longer be a dummy pronoun. .

I think when you make this statement, you're thinking of "the state of affairs" as something perhaps fleshed out in prior context - or even earlier in the sentence.

I don't think this was the intention of MrWordy, or of the OP, in "a vague object."

Use of it

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions