Article published In:
Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

Brazilian Portuguese wh-clefts in a multilevel analytic perspective

ORCID logo | Federal University de Minas Gerais
ORCID logo | State University of Maringá
This paper presents a study on the distribution of wh-clefts – i.e. those having a nominal phrase in the cleft constituent position – in a corpus of TV interviews spoken in Brazilian Portuguese. This language variety has three types of wh-clefts, dubbed canonical, reversed and extraposed, which are analyzed in three levels: the informational-structural level, regarding the types of focus patterns; the macro-discursive level, on how these constructions distribute into topical-chain segments; and the micro-discursive level, with special attention to the rhetorical relations connecting wh-clefts to their immediate contexts. Nevertheless, only the two first levels are crucial for assessing their distribution. We put forward that the results may be explained by the features [unexpectedness] and [topicality], distributed hierarchically, since the first one forces a contextual question to become explicit, as canonical wh-clefts are considered to embed a semi-rhetorical question. The conclusion is that the notion of ‘prominence’ can connect the various results.
Keywords: Wh-clefts, Portuguese, rhetorical relations, topical chains, information structure, prominence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The problem of motivating wh-clefts in Portuguese
  • 3.Theoretical and methodological assumptions
    • 3.1The information structure of cleft constructions
    • 3.2Topical chains and the macro-discursive structure of clefts
    • 3.3The micro-discursive distribution of cleft constructions
  • 4.Corpus and database
  • 5.The distribution of wh-clefts in Brazilian Portuguese
    • 5.1The informational-structural analysis
    • 5.2The macro-discursive analysis
    • 5.3The micro-discursive analysis
      • 5.3.1Canonical wh-clefts
      • 5.3.2Reversed wh-clefts
      • 5.3.3Extraposed wh-clefts
  • 6.Discussion and implications
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23028.and
References (45)
References
Aleixo, Felipe. 2015. “Estrutura informacional e clivagem: Análise da veiculação de informação em construções clivadas do português brasileiro contemporâneo escrito. [Information structure and clefting: Analysis of information expression in cleft constructions of written contemporary Brazilian Portuguese].” MA thesis. State University of São Paulo. [URL]
Andrade, Aroldo Leal de. 2019. “Assessing the Emergence of Reduced Clefts in Brazilian Portuguese: Rhetoric Structure, Information Structure and Syntax.” Revista Letras 991: 101–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antonio, Juliano Desiderato. 2009. “Os usos do agora em elocuções formais e em entrevistas orais. [The uses of agora in formal speech and in oral interviews].” Revista de Estudos da Linguagem 17 (2): 189–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, Phillipe Muller, Myriam Bras, Lydia Mai Ho-Dac, Farah Benamara, Stergos Afantenos, and Laure Vieu. 2017. “ANNODIS and Related Projects: Case Studies on the Annotation of Discourse Structure.” In Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, ed. by Nancy Ide, and James Pustejovsky, 1241–1264. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Maria do Pilar Pereira. 2013. “As construções pseudoclivadas: perguntas e respostas. [Pseudocleft constructions: questions and answers].” In Textos Selecionados, XXVIII Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística [Selected Texts, XXVIII National Meeting of the Portuguese Association of Linguistics], ed. by Fátima Silva, Isabel Falé, Isabel Pereira, and João Veloso, 131–148. Lisbon: Colibri/APL. [URL]
Braga, Maria Luísa, Mary Kato, and Carlos Mioto. 2015. “As construções-Q no português brasileiro falado [ Wh-constructions in spoken Brazilian Portuguese].” In Gramática do português culto falado no Brasil, vol. 3 [Grammar of cultured Portuguese spoken in Brazil], ed. by Mary Kato, and Milton do Nascimento, 187–227. São Paulo: Fapesp/Contexto.Google Scholar
Braga, Maria Luísa, Diego Leite de Oliveira, and Elisiene de Melo Barbosa. 2013. “Gradiência e variação nas construções de foco no português brasileiro [Gradience and variation in focus constructions in Brazilian Portuguese].” Cadernos de Letras da UFF 23 (47): 29–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Lynn, and Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse Tagging Reference Manual. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Colléter, Maud, Cécile Fabre, Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac, Maria Paule Péry-Woodey, Josette Rebeyrolle, and Ludovic Tanguy. 2012. “La ressource ANNODIS multi-échelle: guide d’annotation et bonus [The multilevel resource ANNODIS: annotation guide and bonus].” Carnets de grammaire 20 1. Technical report CLLE-ERSS. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Jean Jaurès.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter C. 1991. Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Costa, João, and Inês Duarte. 2001. “Minimizando a estrutura: uma análise unificada das construções de clivagem em português [Minimizing the structure: a unified analysis of cleft constructions in Portuguese].” In Actas do XVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, Coimbra, 2000 [Proceedings of the 16th National Meeting of the Portuguese Linguistics Association], ed. by Clara Correia, and Anabela Gonçalves, 627–238. Lisbon: APL/Colibri.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2017. “Cleft Constructions.” In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, ed. by Andreas Dufter, and Elisabeth Starke, 536–568. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven/Dordrecht: Leuven University Press/Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy L. 1990. “A Multilevel Account of Cleft Constructions in Discourse.” Proceedings of 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics 21: 83–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy, and Jon Oberlander. 1995. “Syntactic Constraints on Discourse Structure. The Case of It-Clefts.” Linguistics 33 (3): 465–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger, and Chris Wilder. 2000. “Pseudoclefts and Ellipsis.” Studia Linguistica 54 (1): 41–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dufter, Andreas. 2009. “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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti. 2009. “La expresión del Verum Focus en español [The expression of verum focus in current-day Spanish].” Español Actual 921: 11–46.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, and Natalia Levshina. 2014. “Motivating W(h)-Clefts in English and German: A Hypothesis-Driven Parallel Corpus Study.” In Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic: Contrastive, Corpus-Based Studies, ed. by Anna-Maria Cesare, 377–414. Berlin/Munich/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, and Daniel Wiechmann. 2012. “W(h)-clefts im Deutschen und Englischen. Eine quantitative Untersuchung auf Grundlage des Europarl-Korpus [W(h)-clefts in German and English. A quantitative study based on the Europarl corpus].” In Deutsch im Sprachvergleich. Grammatische Kontraste und Konvergenzen [Comparative German. Grammatical contrasts and convergences], ed. by Lutz Gunkel, and Gisela Zifonun, 333–362. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gessler, Luke, Yang Liu, and Amir Zeldes. 2019. “A Discourse Signal Annotation System for RST Trees.” In Proceedings of Discourse Relation Treebanking and Parsing (DISRPT 2019), 56–61. Minneapolis: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax, vol. 1. 2nd edition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. “Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English.” PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota. [URL]
Hedberg, Nancy, 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 Gundel, ed. by Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski, 49–76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang, and Christiane von Stutterheim. 1987. “ Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen [ Quaestio and referential movement in narratives].” Linguistische Berichte 1091: 163–183.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward, and Ursula Bellugi-Klima. 1969. “Syntactic Regularities in the Speech of Children.” In Modern Studies in English, ed. by David A. Reibel, and Sanford A. Schane, 448–466. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, and Renate Musan. 2012. “Information Structure: Overview and Linguistic Issues.” In The Expression of Information Structure, ed. by Manfred Krifka, and Renate Musan, 1–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chungmin. 2003. “Contrastive Topic and/or Contrastive Focus.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 12, ed. by William McClure. Stanford: CSLI. [URL]
Lobo, Maria. 2006. “Assimetrias em construções de clivagem do português: movimento vs. geração na base [Asymmetries among Portuguese cleft constructions: movement vs. base-generation].” In Textos Selecionados, XXI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística [Selected Texts, XXI National Meeting of the Portuguese Association of Linguistics], ed. by Joaquim Barbosa, and Fátima Oliveira, 457–473. Lisbon: Colibri/APL. [URL]
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1983. “Relational Propositions in Discourse.” Research Report 83–115, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281.Google Scholar
Marcu, Daniel. 1999. Instructions for Manually Annotating the Discourse Structures of Texts. Ms. Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “The Structure of Discourse and ‘Subordination.’” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John Haiman, and Sandra Thompson, 275–329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menuzzi, Sérgio. 2018. “Sobre a pressuposição das clivadas [On the presupposition of clefts].” Revista da Anpoll 461: 200–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. “A Comparison of Wh-Clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse.” Language 541, 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2016. “Contrast: Dissecting an Elusive Information-Structural Notion and Its Role in Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, ed. by Caroline Féry, and Shinichiro Ishihara, 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riester, Arndt. 2019. “Constructing QuD trees” In Questions in Discourse, vol 2: Pragmatics, ed. by Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger, and Edgar Onea, 164–193. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santos, Kátia Roseane Cortez. 2018. “Uma investigação funcionalista das relações retóricas do campo da avaliação no português falado [A functionalist investigation of rhetorical relations in the field of evaluation in spoken Portuguese].” MA thesis. State University of Maringá. [URL]
Stede, Manfred, Maite Taboada, and Debopam Das. 2017. Annotation Guidelines for Rhetorical Structure. Ms., University of Potsdam and Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and William C. Mann. 1987a. “Antithesis: A Study in Clause Combining and Discourse Structure.” In Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, vol. 2, ed. by Ross Steele, and Terry Threadgold, 359–384. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1987b. “A Discourse View of Concession in Written English.” In Proceedings of the Second Annual Pacific Linguistics Conference, ed. by Scott C. DeLancey, and Russell S. Tomlin, 435–447. Eugene: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, Klaus, and Petra Schumacher. 2019. “Discourse Prominence: Definition and Application.” Journal of Pragmatics 1541: 117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinert, Regina, and Jim Miller. 1996. “Cleft Constructions in Spoken Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 251, 173–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar