Cover not available
Article 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. 121–143

A focus analysis of apparent predicational clefts

| IDS Mannheim

This paper discusses a specific subclass of English it-clefts posited in the theoretical literature, so-called predicational clefts. The main point of the paper is to show that there is no need to postulate such a separate class. Predicational clefts look special because of the narrow focus on the adjective within an indefinite pivot, but their special properties can all be derived from this narrow focus in a focus analysis in which it-clefts express contrasting focus. Contrasting focus means that besides the assertion of the proposition expressed in the cleft, there is one contrasting proposition which is excluded. The focus on the adjective in apparent predicational clefts gives rise to a narrow set of relevant alternatives, all of which differ only in the adjectival property within the pivot. The analysis developed here can account for many of the observations for apparent predicational clefts. Other properties are shown to be not conclusive. Thus, predicational clefts need not be considered a special subclass beyond their special focus characteristics.

Keywords: it-clefts, English, focus, contrast, focus alternatives, specificational copular clauses
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contrastive it-clefts in English
  • 3.A focus analysis of apparent predicational clefts
    • 3.1Introduction
    • 3.2Contrasting focus with a predicative focus exponent
    • 3.3Accounting for the focus-related properties of apparent predicational clefts
      • 3.3.1Exhaustivity
      • 3.3.2Negation and contrast
      • 3.3.3Focus on indefinite plurals
      • 3.3.4Predicational questions and paraphrases
      • 3.3.5Summary
  • 4.Other criteria for apparent predicational clefts
    • 4.1Embedding in small clauses
    • 4.2Negation with no
    • 4.3 No inversion with pseudocleft equivalent
    • 4.4Coordination of predicational and specificational clefts
    • 4.5Modification by graded elements
    • 4.6Specificity of the pivot
    • 4.7Summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00018.har
References
Akmajian, Adrian
1979 Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine
1977 “Th-Clefts.” Pennsylvania Review of Linguistics 21: 57–69.Google Scholar
Beaver, David
2012 “IT-constructions.” GLOW talk, Potsdam University.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid
2006 “Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 141: 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2008 “Answering strategies: new information subjects and the nature of clefts.” In Structure and Strategies, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 242–265. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
BNC
2001 “British National Corpus, version 2 (world edition).” Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2012 “What’s Given (and What’s New) in the Theory of Focus?.” In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 8–10,2008, ed. by Sarah Berson, 403–424. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Ling. Soc.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel and Manuel Križ
2013 “It’s That, and That’s It! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites).” Semantics & Pragmatics 61: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1977 “On Wh-Movement.” In Formal Syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover, Thomas A. Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio
2012 “Focus in Existential Sentences.” In Enjoy linguistics!, ed. by Valentina Bianchi and C. Chesi. Siena: CISCL Press.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin
2000 “A Constructional Approach to Clefts.” Linguistics 38(6): 1101–1131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “On Specificational There-clefts.” Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 1–34.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2007 “Sul cosidetto, ‘c’è presentativo’: Forme e funzioni.” In Lessico, grammatica e testualità, tra itlaiano scritto e parlato, ed. by Anna-Maria De Cesare and A. Ferrari, 127–153. Basilea: University of Basilea.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1983 “Predicational Clefts.” Lingua 611: 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P.
1984 “The Analysis of English Cleft Sentences.” Linguistic Analysis 13(1): 63–113.Google Scholar
Delin, Judy
1992 “Aspects of Cleft Constructions in Discourse.” Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 191: 1–67.Google Scholar
Delin, Judy and Jon Oberlander
1995 “Syntactic Constraints on Discourse Structure: The Case of It-clefts.” Linguistics 331: 465–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel
2006a Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b “Specificational Copular Sentences and Pseudoclefts.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, Volume IV1, 292–409. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Predication and Specification in the Syntax of Cleft Sentences.” In Cleft Structures, ed. by Katharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra, 35701. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “The attractions of agreement.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie, Daniel Velleman, Edgar Onea, Dylan Bumford, and Jingyang Xue
2015 “A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Non-At-Issueness of Exhaustive Inferences.” In Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, ed. by Florian Schwarz, 135–156. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos
2004 The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Notions and Subnotions in Information Structure.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3): 381–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian
1978 The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions. Austin, Texas: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M.
2008 Expletives in Existentials: English there and German da. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2013 “Freezing in It-clefts.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 53(3): 487–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The Syntax and Focus Structure of Specificational Copular Clauses and Clefts. Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar
in prep. “Exhaustivity and Focus Alternatives in Clefts: Experimental Evidence.” Manuscript.
Hedberg, Nancy
1990 Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English. Ph. D. thesis, University of Minnesota, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie
1988 The Syntax of Copular Constructions. Ph. D. thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
1992 “Layers of Predication and the Syntax of the Copula.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 71: 95–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 “The Internal Structure of Small Clauses.” In Proceedings of NELS 25, ed. by Jill Beckmann, 223–238. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
2012 “Specification, Equation, and Agreement in Copular Sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/ Revue canadienne de linguistique 57(2): 209–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger
1979 The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1981 “Exhaustiveness and the Semantics of Clefts.” In Papers from the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS, ed. by Victoria Burke and Pustejovsky James, 124–142. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Huber, Stefan
2002 Es-Clefts und det-Clefts: Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Ph. D. thesis, Lund University, Lund.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson
2002 “Relative Constructions and Unbounded dependencies.” In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Laurie Bauer, 1031–1096. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1927 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Band 3: Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena
2017 “French il y a Clefts, Existential Sentences and the Focus-Marking Hypothesis.” Journal of French Language Studies 3(27): 1–26.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena and Karen Lahousse
2018 “The Information Structure of French il y a Clefts & C’est Clefts: A Corpus-Based Analysis.” Linguistics 56(3): 513–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jonah and Elisabeth Selkirk
2011 “Contrastive Focus vs. Discourse-New: Evidence From Phonetic Prominence in English.” Language 87(4): 771–816. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katzir, Roni
2013 “A Note on Contrast.” Natural Language Semantics 21(4): 333–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István
2006 “Focus as Identification.” In The Architecture of Topic and Focus, ed. by Valeria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É.
1998 “Identificational Focus versus Information Focus.” Language 741: 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika and Elisabeth Selkirk
2010 “Distinguishing Contrastive, New and Given Information.” Talk given at the International Conference on Information Structure, sponsored by SFB 632 Informationsstruktur, Potsdam, July 2010.
Krifka, Manfred
2008 “Basic Notions of Information Structure.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 551: 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Projecting the Common Ground with Questions: Biases, Tags, and Alternatives.” Talk given at the Division of Labor Conference, Tübingen University.
Kruisinga, Etsko
1932 A Handbook of Present-day English: Part II: English accidence and syntax. Vol.31. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Ladd, Dwight Robert
1996 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald
1991 “Koordinierende Konjunktionen.” In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 597–623. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2005 Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria
2006 “On Different Kinds of Contrast.” In The Architecture of Focus, ed. by Valeria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 197–233. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry
1975 “Some remarks on the nature of sentences.” In Papers from the parasession on functionalism, ed. by Robin E. Grossman, L. James San and Timothy J. Vance. Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea
1991 “The Raising of Predicates: Copula, Expletives, and Existence.” In More Papers on Wh-movement, ed. by Lisa Cheng and Hamid Demirdache, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 119–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
1997 The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patten, Amanda
2010 Cleft sentences, Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization. Ph. D. thesis, Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Percus, Oren
1997 “Prying Open the Cleft.” NELS 271: 337–351.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik
1916 A Grammar of Late Modern English: Part II: Parts of Speech, Section IB. Pronouns and Numerals. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie
2010 “Defining ‘Contrast’ as an Information-Structural Notion in Grammar.” Lingua 1201: 1333–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Contrast: Dissectiong an Elusive Infomation-Structural Notion and Its Role in the Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, ed. by Caroline Féry and Shin Ishihara, 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S.
2013 “Discourse New, F-Marking, and Normal Stress.” Lingua [SI: Information Structure Triggers] 1361: 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel
2005 “Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 687–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
2002 “Contrastive FOCUS vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic Evidence from Right Node Raising in English.” In Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Prosody Conference, ed. by Bernard Bel and Isabelle Marlin, 643–646. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Google Scholar
Spathas, Giorgos
2010 Focus on Anaphora. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke
2011 “Focus excluding alternatives: Conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa.” Lingua 121(11): 1734–1750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velleman, Dan Bridges, David Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea, and Liz Coppock
2013 “It-clefts are IT (Inquiry Terminating) Contractions.” Proceedings of SALT VIII 221: 441–460.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael
2005 Prosody and Recursion. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, M.A.Google Scholar
2012 “Focus and Givenness: A Unified Approach.” In Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, ed. by Ivona Kučerová and Ad Neeleman, 102–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Washburn, Mary Byram
2013 Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph. D. thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Washburn, Mary Byram, Elsi Kaiser, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
2013 “The English It-Cleft: No Need to Get Exhausted.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel
2005 Shifting the Focus: From Static Structures to the Dynamics of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte and Edgar Onea
2011 “Focus marking and focus interpretation.” Lingua 121(11): 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar