Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in prosody and syntax
Edited by Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude and Martine Vanhove
[Studies in Language Companion Series 199] 2018
► pp. 245–264

Chapter 9
Subjects and focus in clefts

The case of Tilapa Otomi

 | SeDyL (CNRS – INaLCO – IRD)
This paper is an exploration of the syntax-pragmatics interface in the pseudo-clefts of Tilapa Otomi, an Oto-Manguean language of Mexico. The goal of this paper is to show that the focus phrase in the clefts of Tilapa Otomi is the subject of the cleft construction, which is entirely based on the copular construction. This claim has a theoretical interest because the alignment of focus and subject has been tainted as problematic in certain approaches to clefts that want the subject to be the topic. The subject in clefts in Tilapa Otomi conveys contrastive focus, but clefts in Tilapa Otomi may also be used as thetic constructions to express broad focus, in which case it is the whole clause that is in focus.
Article outline
  • 1.A brief introduction to clefts
  • 2.Basics of Tilapa Otomi grammar
  • 3.The copular construction and the clefts of Tilapa Otomi
  • 4.Discussion about the syntactic status of the FP in clefts
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.09pal
References (29)
References
Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence & Smith-Stark, Thomas. 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62(3): 530–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy & Oberlander, Jon. 1995. Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: The case of it-clefts. Linguistics 33(3): 465–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Cleft constructions in context: Some suggestions for research methodology. Ms.Google Scholar
Delin, Judy. 1995. Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(2): 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert, Henk Van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans, & Bart Hollebrandse (eds), 292–409. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Drubig, Hans-Bernhard & Schaffer, Wolfram. 2001. Focus constructions. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Koenig & Wulf Osterreicher (eds), 1079–1104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Drubig, Hans-Bernhard. 2003. Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions. Linguistics 41(1): 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1988. A typology of subjects. In Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 193–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.) 1979. Discourse and Syntax: Syntax and Semantics 12. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1983a. Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction. In Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 4–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983b. Topic continuity in spoken English. In Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 343–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Syntax: A Functional Typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988a. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik, & Jessica Wirth (eds), 209–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988b. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1949. Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VII: Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 85]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. Topic, Focus, and the Grammar of Spoken French. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3): 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oberlander, Jon & Delin, Judy. 1996. The function and interpretation of reverse wh-clefts in spoken discourse. Language and Speech 39(2–3): 185–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L. 2018. Clefts in Otomi: Extended uses of the copular construction. International Journal of American Linguistics 84(1): 93–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patten, Amanda. 2012. The English It-cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation [Topics in English Linguistics 79]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(2): 511–580.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1991. Grammaticalization of topic into subject. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 93–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehr, Barbara. 1984. Diskursstrategien im Romanischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 347–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Palancar, Enrique L.
2021. Biclausal vs. monoclausal focus constructions in Tilapa Otomi. Faits de Langues 52:1 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.