1.2.5 This/that vs. these/those

Rule: That (and those) cannot be used with cataphoric reference.

1. Let me put it that way: I'm against capital punishment.
2. Look, it's like that: of course the essay is a test of language, but it also tests more than just language skills.
3. The author characterizes a future war in that way that the armed forces want to win as much territory as possible.
4. Before the beginning of our century technology had not yet developed to that degree as it is today.
5. The lack of playgrounds is responsible for that fact that many children in large cities are lonely.
6. A lot of retired people go back to work, but only few of them find a job which is comparable to that kind of work they did before.
7. They do not see any way to change industry in that way, that it uses nature instead of destroying it.
8. It's better to attend that class that you wish.
9. The child is able to speak that language it hears during the first years of its life.

Unlike the, this, and these, that and those cannot be used to refer to something (a noun phrase or proposition) which follows rather than precedes. This in (1) and (2) is perfectly acceptable, just as these, but not those, is acceptable in a sentence like My goals are these: money,_power, and fame. In (3-9) that is used as a prenominal modifier with cataphoric reference to a postnominal modifying (relative) clause, on the analogy of German structures such as ...vergleichbar mit der Art von Arbeit, die sie vorher gemacht haben (cf. (6)). Superficially, this may seem to be the same structure as in sentences like This/that girl you fixed me up with is great!, but in fact this usage is not cataphoric, since it is not possible unless the reference is to something which has happened or been said previously, the relative clause functioning as a further clarification of the anaphora. If what is referred to precedes (anaphoric reference), that/those as well as is these are acceptable; compare with (5), for example:

Many children in large cities are lonely, and the lack of playgrounds is responsible for this/that (fact)

There are other examples involving demonstratives which are not included here as data because the sentences, though problematic, are not unacceptable. Consider the following:

(a) The author also mentions the "direct method". That means a pupil should be forced to speak only the L2.
(b) In your last letter you asked me about German Fasching. I'm afraid I can't explain that.
(c) He said he doesn't like Daniel but I think it's only a subjective opinion of that boy.
(d) If she gets on well with him, she should not break up that friendship.
(e) People buy a lot of presents at Christmastime. Often things are bought without thinking a lot about the true worth of those presents.
(f) Other women are forced to go to unethical and incompetent doctors who are willing to help them, although it is illegal. After that treatment the health of those women is ruined.
(g) When I was 11 years old I stayed with friends of my parents in England for 6 weeks, and have been visiting that country rather regularly ever since.
(h) It seems to be an impossible task to try to explain why the revolution in Iran took place at that particular time.

That means is of course a translation of das heißt and tends to be overused by German learners. At least, alternative translations should be pointed out, e.g.: that is (to say), which means, which is to say, in other words, etc. In general, German learners overuse or "overindulge" (cf. Levenston 1971) in the use of that rather than this, and though the slight oddness of any one sentence like those above might easily escape one's notice, it becomes more noticeable as one encounters them more often.

In (h), since the sentence begins an essay written immediately after the Iranian revolution and the time reference is clearly the general present, that is more clearly inappropriate here than in the other sentences. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976:60): "...that tends to be associated with a past-time referent and this for one in the present or future." The word tends should be emphasized, though, since one can easily find counterexamples.

Halliday and Hasan also say that this tends to refer to what the speaker says or has said, and that to what someone else says--an extension of the basic near-far distinction--and that the "tendency seems to be further reinforced if the reference is also in some way associated with the speaker it is this assumption which lies behind the use of the 'near' forms (1976:60-61). This leaves us on slightly steadier ground, since in all the examples above the reference is to something the speaker, not someone else, has just said, and in most cases the reference is also to something or someone that the speaker would feel relatively close to or associated with. For example, in (b) the speaker is a German writing a hypothetical letter (as a class exercise) to an American friend who has asked him to explain Fasching, so Could you explain that? would have been appropriate for the American to say, but this is more likely in the German's remark. Likewise, (c) and (d) occur in the context of another hypothetical letter addressed to a close friend who has written to ask for advice: she wants to know whether to tell Rachel (another friend), who is planning to marry Daniel, that she has heard from still another boy that Daniel may have committed a crime (a theft) when he was in school. Even if our speaker doesn't know Rachel and Daniel, in this context of giving detailed advice to a friend about such an intimate matter, one would expect the "associative" this rather than the more distant that.

Another point is that anaphoric this seems to be preferred, all else being equal, in writing. (All the examples above are from written compositions.) This is probably because the proximity of the antecedent can disappear from the consciousness of interlocutors in the real time of conversation, whereas in writing the relationship is visible and both author and reader are thus more likely to remain aware of it.