Introduction published in:
Non-prototypical clefts
Edited by Lena Karssenberg, Karen Lahousse, Béatrice Lamiroy, Stefania Marzo and Ana Drobnjakovic
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 32] 2018
► pp. 1–20
Introduction

Non-prototypical clefts

Formal, semantic and information-structural properties

| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
In this article we present an overview of current debates in the analysis of cleft sentences. The types of sentences that are often seen as prototypical examples of the cleft category are introduced by it is or a cross-linguistic equivalent; in addition, they have specificational semantics and a focus-background information structure articulation. We argue here that other, less prototypical types of constructions, which have received less attention, also belong to the cleft category: sentences that are introduced by expressions such as there is and you’ve got (and their cross-linguistic equivalents), as well as sentences introduced by it is which do not have specificational semantics and which express other types of information structure articulations (e.g. all-focus or topic-comment). We argue that it is fruitful to analyse these ‘non-prototypical’ clefts in more depth, not only to come to a better understanding about these sentence types in their own right, but also to arrive at insights in the phenomenon of ‘clefts’ in general.
Keywords: non-prototypical, cleft sentences, information structure, existential sentences, presentational sentences, there cleft
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prototypical clefts and their properties
  • 3.Non-prototypical information structure articulation of clefts
  • 4.Enlarging the category: Non-prototypical cleft introducers
  • 5.Contributions in this volume
    • 5.1Introduction
    • 5.2Different formal types of non-prototypical clefts
    • 5.3Theoretical and methodological background
    • 5.4The role of information structure
    • 5.5Main claims and results
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00014.kar
References

References

Ashby, William J.
1999 “Au sujet de quoi? La fonction du sujet grammatical, du complément d’objet direct, et de la construction présentative en français parlé.” The French Review 72 (3): 481–492.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2008 “The CP of Clefts.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 331: 191–204.Google Scholar
2009 “Answering Strategies: New Information Subjects and the Nature of Clefts.” In Structures and Strategies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2012 “Revisiting the CP of Clefts.” In Discourse and Grammar. From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories, ed. by Ede Zimmermann, and Günther Grewendorf, 91–114. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “The Focus Map of Clefts: Extraposition and Predication.” In Where Do We Go from Here? Chapters in Syntactic Cartography, ed. by Ur Shlonsky, 42–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica
1995 “Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso /1: ‘C’è il gatto che ha fame’.” Italiano e Oltre 531: 79–105.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
2006 “Les clivées françaises de type: c’est comme ça que, c’est pour ça que, cest là que tout a commencé .” Moderna Språk 100 (2): 273–287.Google Scholar
Casalicchio, Jan
2013a “The Pseudo-Relatives and Other Correspondent Constructions in the Romance Languages.” In Proceedings of the 4th Austrian Students’ Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Irina Windhaber, and Peter Anreiter, 64–84. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2013b Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle varietà romanze: Affinità (solo) superficiali e corrispondenze strutturali. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Choi-Jonin, Injoo, and Véronique Lagae
2005 “ Il y a des gens ils ont mauvais caractère. À propos du rôle de il y a .” In Sens et références. Mélanges Georges Kleiber, ed. by Adolfo Murguía, 39–66. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clech-Darbon, Anne, Georges Rebuschi, and Annie Rialland
1999 “Are There Cleft Sentences in French?” In The Grammar of Focus, ed. by Laurice Tuller, and Georges Rebuschi, 83–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter C.
1991 Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “Cleft Existentials in English.” Language Sciences 14 (4): 419–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conti, Virginie
2010 “La construction en avoir SN qui SV (« J’ai ma copine qui habite à Paris ») : Une forme de dispositif clivé ?” Linx 62–63: 63–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio
2014 “Some Notes on Clefting and Fronting.” In Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 181–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin
1999 “The Semantics of Cardinal versus Enumerative Existential Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 10 (3): 203–250.Google Scholar
2000 “A Constructional Approach to Clefts.” Linguistics 38 (6): 1101–1131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “On Specificational There-Clefts.” Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics: 1–34.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, and Ditte Kimps
2016 “Specificational There-Clefts: Functional Structure and Information Structure.” English Text Construction 9 (1): 115–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2007 “Sul cosidetto ‘c’è presentativo’. Forme e funzioni.” In Lessico, grammatica e testualità, tra italiano scritto e parlato, ed. by Anna-Maria De Cesare, and Angela Ferrari, 127–153. Basel: University of Basel.Google Scholar
2012 “Riflessioni sulla diffusione delle costruzioni scisse nell’italiano giornalistico odierno a partire dalla loro manifestazione nei lanci di agenzia in italiano e in inglese.” Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 191: 11–39.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, and Davide Garassino
2015 “On the Status of Exhaustiveness in Cleft Sentences: An Empirical and Cross-Linguistic Study of English Also-/Only-Clefts and Italian Anche-/Solo-Clefts.” Folia Linguistica 49 (1): 1–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds) 2016 Current Issues in Romance Non-Canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Davide Garassino, Rocío Agar Marco, Ana Albom, and Doriana Cimmino
2016 Sintassi marcata dell’italiano dell’uso medio in prospettiva contrastiva con il francese, lo spagnolo, il tedesco e l’inglese. Uno studio basato sulla scrittura dei quotidiani online. Ed. by Elmar Schafroth, and Marcella Costa, Linguistica Contrastiva/Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Davide Garassino, Rocío Agar Marco, and Laura Baranzini
2014 “Form and Frequency of Italian Cleft Constructions in a Corpus of Electronic News: A Comparative Perspective with French, Spanish, German and English.” In Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic: Contrastive, Corpus-Based Studies, ed. by Anna-Maria De Cesare, 49–99. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna Maria
2017 “Cleft Constructions.” In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, ed. by Andreas Dufter, and Elisabeth Stark. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys
2008 “De la malléabilité des structures syntaxiques dans l’interaction orale: Le cas des constructions clivées.” In 1er Congrès Mondial De Linguistique Française, ed. by J. Durand, B. Habert, and B. Laks, 703–720. Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
2009 “Le strutture grammaticali come epifenomeni dell’interazione sociale? riflessioni sull’uso delle costruzioni scisse nel parlato conversazionale italiano e francese.” In Sintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano: subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione: Atti del X congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Basilea, 30 Giugno-3 Luglio 2008, 1615–1631. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1983 “Predicational Clefts.” Lingua 61 (1): 9–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984 “The Pragmatics of It-Clefts and Wh-Clefts.” Lingua 64 (4): 251–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 Studies on Copular Sentences, Cleſts and Pseudo-Clefts. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy
1992 “Properties of It-Cleft Presuppositions.” Journal of Semantics 9 (4): 289–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel
2013 “Predication and Specification in the Syntax of Cleft Sentences.” In Cleft Structures, ed. by Katharina Hartmann, and Tonjes Veenstra, 35–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie
2012 “The French C’est-Cleft: An Empirical Study on its Meaning and Use.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Christopher Piñón, 95–112.Google Scholar
2013 “The French C’est-Cleft: Empirical Studies of its Meaning and Use.” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie, and Leah Velleman
2014 “Refining Contrastiveness. Empirical Evidence from the English It-Cleft.” In Selected Papers from CFFP 2013, ed. by Cristopher Piñon, 197–214.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny, Georges Rebuschi, and Annie Rialland
2004 “Cleft Sentences.” In Handbook of French Semantics, ed. by Francis Corblin, and Henriëtte De Swart, 529–552. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas
2006 “Zwischen Kompositionalität und Konventionalisierung: Satzspaltung mit C’est im Französischen der Gegenwart.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 571: 31–59.Google Scholar
2008 “On Explaining the Rise of C’est-Clefts in French.” In The Paradox of Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Romance, ed. by Ulrich Detges, and Richard Waltereit, 31–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009a “Beyond Focus Marking: Fine-Tuning the Evolution of Cleft Types from Latin to Modern French.” Paper presented at the DGfS-Jahrestagung 31. AG 9: Focus Marking Strategies and Focus Interpretation, Osnabrück.
2009b “Clefting and Discourse Organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance.” In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, ed. by Andreas Dufter, and Daniel Jacob, 83–121. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, and Francesca Ramaglia
2013 “(Pseudo)Clefts at the Syntax-Prosody-Discourse Interface.” In Cleft Structures, ed. by Tonjes Veenstra, and Katharina Hartmann, 97–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Furukawa, Naoyo
1996 Grammaire de la prédication seconde. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide
2014 “Le frasi scisse nei testi giornalistici online: Italiano e inglese a confronto.” In Atti del XII Convegno Silfi (Helsinki, 18–20 June 2012), ed. by Enrico Garavelli, and Elina Suomela-Härmä, 631–640. Firenze: Cesati.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
2006 “Clefts in English and Norwegian: Implications for the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface.” In The Architecture of Focus, ed. by Valéria Molnar, and Susanne Winkler, 517–548. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, André Meinunger, and Aleksandra Vercauteren
2014a “Against the Matrix Left Peripheral Analysis of English It-Clefts.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012: Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Leuven 2012, ed. by Karen Lahousse, and Stefania Marzo, 91–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “The Architecture of It-Clefts.” Journal of Linguistics 50 (2): 269–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M.
2016 “Freezing in It-Clefts.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 58 (03): 487–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy
2006 “Topic-Focus Controversies.” In The Architecture of Focus, ed. by Valeria Molnar, and Susanne Winkler, 373–397. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy Ann
1990 “Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English.” PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
2013 “Multiple Focus and Cleft Sentences.” In Cleft Structures, ed. by Katharina Hartmann, and Tonjes Veenstra, 227–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy Ann, and Lorna Fadden
2007 “The Information Structure of It-Clefts, Wh-Clefts and Reverse Wh-Clefts in English.” In The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, ed. by Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski, 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, and S.-E. Jhang
1994 “Clefts and Pseudoclefts in Korean and Mandarin.” Proceedings of the annual conference – Canadian Linguistic Association: 247–256.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
2012 “Specification, Equation, and Agreement in Copular Sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de Linguistique 57 (2): 209–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, Daniel
2015 “Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text – Rhetorik.” In Informationsstrukturen in Kontrast: Strukturen, Kompositionen und Strategien, ed. by Séverine Adam, Daniel Jacob, and Michael Schecker, 101–122. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jullien, Stéphane
2014 “Syntaxe et dialogue. Les configurations syntaxiques impliquant “il y a”.” PhD thesis, Université de Neuchatêl, Université Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena
2016a “French il y a Clefts, Existential Sentences and the Focus-Marking Hypothesis.” Journal of French Language Studies 27 (3): 405–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016b “ Il n’y a que superman qui porte le slip par-dessus le pantalon: Les clivées en il n’y a que x qui .” In 5e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 1–14. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
2017 “ Ya les oiseaux qui chantent. A Corpus Analysis of French il y a Clefts.” PhD dissertation, Linguistics Department, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
2018a “ Il y a toujours un chameau qui tombe. Les multiples fonctions des clivées en il y a .” In 6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 1–13. SHS Web of Conferences.Google Scholar
2018b Non-Prototypical Clefts in French: A Corpus Analysis of il y a Clefts. Ed. by Claudia Polzin-Haumann, and Wolfgang Schweickard, Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Romanische Philologie. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena, and Karen Lahousse
2017 “Les SN définis et indéfinis dans les clivées en il y a .” In Contraintes linguistiques. À propos de la complémentation nominale, ed. by Caroline Lachet, Luis Meneses-Lerín, and Audrey Roig, 197–210. Brussels: PIE Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2018 “The Information Structure of French il y a Clefts and c’est Clefts: A Corpus-Based Analysis.” Linguistics 56 (3): 513–548. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena, Karen Lahousse, and Stefania Marzo
2018 “Les clivées en voici/voilà: Une analyse de corpus.” Lingvisticae Investigationes 41 (1): 129–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena, Stefania Marzo, Karen Lahousse, and Daniela Guglielmo
2018 “There’s More to Italian C’è Clefts Than Marking All-Focus.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 29 (2): 57–86.Google Scholar
Katz, Stacy
2000 “Categories of C’est-Cleft Constructions.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 45 (2): 253–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche
2007 The Que/Qui Alternation: New Analytical Directions. Lingbuzz. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/000638 [last access: 26.03.2018].
La Fauci, Nunzio, Heike Necker, Sophia Simon, and Liana Tronci
2010 “Costrutti con c’è e nome proprio in una telecronaca sportiva: Configurazioni funzionali e valori testuali.” Congresso internazionale del Gruppo di Studio sulla Comunicazione parlata 3, Napoli 23–25 February 2009.Google Scholar
Lagae, Véronique, and Christine Rouget
1998 “Quelques réflexions sur les relatives prédicatives.” In Analyse linguistique et approches de l’oral. Recueil d’études offert en hommage à Claire Blanche-Benveniste, ed. by Mireille Bilger, Karel Van den Eynde, and Françoise Gadet, 313–325. Leuven/Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen
2007 “Specificational Sentences and Word Order in Romance: A Functional Analysis.” Folia Linguistica 41 (3–4): 357–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Specificational Sentences and the Influence of Information Structure on (Anti-) Connectivity Effects.” Journal of Linguistics 45 (1): 139–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lahousse, Karen, and Marijke Borremans
2014 “The Distribution of Functional-Pragmatic Types of Clefts in Adverbial Clauses.” Linguistics 52 (3): 793–836. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lahousse, Karen, Christopher Laenzlinger, and Gabriela Soare
2014 “Contrast and Intervention at the Periphery.” Lingua 1431: 56–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lahousse, Karen, and Béatrice Lamiroy
2015 “ C’est ainsi que: Grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation ou les deux à la fois ?” Journal of French Language Studies 27 (2): 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1988 “Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson, 135–179. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000a “Prédication seconde et structure informationnelle: La relative de perception comme construction présentative.” Langue française 127 (1): 49–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000b “When Subjects Behave Like Objects: A Markedness Analysis of Sentence-Focus Constructions across Languages.” Studies in Language 24 (3): 611–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics 39 (3): 463–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Topic, Focus and Secondary Predication. The French Presentational Relative Construction.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, ed. by Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi, 171–212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Léard, Jean-Marcel
1992 Les gallicismes. Étude syntaxique et sémantique. Paris/Leuven: Duculot.Google Scholar
Marzo, Stefania, and Claudia Crocco
2015 “Tipicità delle costruzioni presentative per l’italiano neostandard.” Revue Romane 50 (1): 30–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, Piet
2012 “La prosodie des clivées.” In Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste, ed. by Sandrine Caddéo, Marie-Noëlle Roubaud, Magali Rouquier, and Frédéric Sabio, 127–139. Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar
Mørdrup, Ole
1976 “Sur la classification des adverbes en -ment ”. Revue Romane XI (2): 317–333.Google Scholar
Naegeli Frutschi, Urs
1987 Les adverbes de phrase: leur définition et leur emploi en français contemporain. Zürich: Zentralstelle der Studentenschaft.Google Scholar
Piotrowski, Jennifer A.
2009 “Information Structure of Clefts in Spoken English.” PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F.
1978 “A Comparison of Wh-Clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse.” Language 54 (4): 883–906. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothenberg, Mira
1979 “Les propositions relatives prédicatives et attributives: Problème de linguistique française.” Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 741: 351–395.Google Scholar
Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle
1998 “Constructions en c’est: Les pseudo-clivées.” Cahiers de grammaire 231: 81–94.Google Scholar
2000 Les constructions pseudo-clivées en français contemporain. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
2005 “Une construction trop peu exploitée, la construction pseudo-clivée.” In La linguistique de corpus, ed. by Geoffrey Williams, 93–100. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle, and Frédéric Sabio
2015 “Les clivées en c’est là où et c’est là que: Structure et usages en français moderne.” Repères DoRiF 61 (Recherches sur la syntaxe verbale en français et en italien. Hommage à Claire Blanche-Benveniste): 1–13.Google Scholar
Rouquier, Magali
2007 “Les constructions clivées en ancien français et en moyen français.” Romania 1251: 167–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 L’émergence des constructions clivées, pseudo-clivées et liées en français. Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
Sabio, Frédéric, and Christophe Benzitoun
2013 “Sur les relations entre syntaxe et discours: Dispositifs de la rection et dispositifs macrosyntaxiques.” Studia Universitas Babeş-Bolyai Philologia 58 (4): 97–110 <hal-00931611>.Google Scholar
Secova, Maria
2010 “Discourse-Pragmatic Features of Spoken French: Analysis and Pedagogical Implications.” PhD dissertation, School of Languages, Linguistics and Film, Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar
Smits, Reinier Johannes Charles
1989 Eurogrammar. The Relative and Cleft Constructions in the Germanic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verwimp, Lyan, and Karen Lahousse
2016 “Definite il y a-Clefts in Spoken French.” Journal of French Language Studies 27 (3): 263–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar