Cover not available
Part of
Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond
Edited by Marco García García and Melanie Uth
[Studies in Language Companion Series 201] 2018
► pp. 255–286

Chapter 9
Adverbial cleft sentences in Italian, French and English

A comparative perspective

| University of Basel
| University of Zurich
The aim of this paper is to offer a multi-layered analysis of adverbial clefts in Italian, French, and English. In particular, we intend to offer a corpus-based study of the syntactic category of the cleft constituent, its semantic type and, finally, the information structure of adverbial clefts. In the first part of our contribution, after defining the concept of adverbial, we discuss which categories of adverbials can (or cannot) be clefted. In the second part, we cast light on the similarities and differences between the three languages. The main cross-linguistic similarities concern the semantic type of cleft adverbials, whereas the most significant differences lie in information structure. Finally, we will relate our empirical findings to the ongoing theoretical discussion on the semantics (and pragmatics) of adverbial clefts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining (cleftable) adverbials
    • 2.1Adverbials as a syntactic function
    • 2.2Syntactic categories of adverbials
    • 2.3Cleftable adverbials
  • 3.Adverbials in Italian, French and English clefts: Corpus findings
    • 3.1Methods and data
      • 3.1.1Corpus
      • 3.1.2Corpus query
    • 3.2Corpus findings: Italian, French and English
      • 3.2.1Frequency of adverbial clefts
      • 3.2.2Syntactic categories of the cleft constituent in adverbial clefts
      • 3.2.3Semantic categories of the cleft constituent in adverbial clefts
      • 3.2.4Information structure of adverbial clefts
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.201.09dec
References (57)
References
Ackema, Peter. 2015. Arguments and adjuncts. In Syntax. Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 246–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1994. The origins of the informative-presupposition it-cleft. Journal of Pragmatics 22(6): 603–628.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2015. The focus map of clefts: Extraposition and Predication. In Beyond Functional Sequence [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures series], Ur Shlonsky (ed.), 42–59. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1978. È tre ore che ti aspetto. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 3(2): 231–245.Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica. 1994. Ordini marcati dei costituenti di frase in italiano. La frase scissa. Vox Romanica 53: 79–105.Google Scholar
. 1996. Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso/III: Che mi fa paura è la nebbia . Italiano & Oltre XI: 116–122.Google Scholar
. 2002. Quello che voglio dire è che: Le scisse da strutture topicalizzanti a connettivi testuali. In Dalla parola al testo. Scritti per Bice Mortara Garavelli, Gianluigi Beccaria & Carla Marello (eds), 15–31. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory. 2009. Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 3–4: 1167–1187.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter-Thomas, Shirley. 2009. The French c’est-cleft: Function and frequency. In La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française, David Banks, Simon Eason & Janet Ormrod (eds), 127–156. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter C. 1991. Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Achille, Paolo, Proietti, Domenico & Viviani, Andrea. 2005. La frase scissa in italiano: Aspetti e problemi. In Tipologia linguistica e società. Due giornate italo-danesi di studi linguistici (Roma, 27–28 novembre 2003), Paolo D’Achille & Iørn Korzen (eds), 249–279. Firenze: Cesati.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2017. Cleft constructions. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax [Manuals of Romance Linguistics 17], Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds), 536–568. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. In press. French Adverbial clefts: theoretical and empirical issues. In Non-prototypical Clefts [Special Issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics], Ana Drobnjakovic, Lena Karssenberg, Karen Lahousse, Stefania Marzo & Béatrice Lamiroy (eds).
De Cesare, Anna-Maria & Garassino, Davide. 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Garassino, Davide, Agar Marco, Rocío & Baranzini, Laura. 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, Anna-Maria De Cesare (ed), 49–99. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diepeveen, Janneke. 2013. Linguistically interesting: Dutch domain adverbials in contrast. JournaLIPP 2: 15–29. <[URL]> (16 April 2017).
Dufter, Andreas. 2008. On explaining the rise of c’est-clefts in French. In The Paradox of Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Romance [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 293], Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds), 31–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 112], Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 83–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1995. Themes, development and text. In On Subject and Theme [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118], Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds), 317–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frison, Lorenza. 1988. L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 1, Lorenzo Renzi (ed), 194–225. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide. 2014. Reverse pseudo-cleft sentences in Italian and English: A contrastive analysis. In Tra romanistica e germanistica: Lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura / Between Romance and Germanic: Language, Text, Cognition and Culture, Iørn Korzen, Angela Ferrari & Anna-Maria De Cesare (eds), 55–74. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. Miami FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Oxford Reference Grammar, ed. by Edmund Weiner. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2004. Adverbials in it-cleft constructions. In Advances in Corpus Linguistics, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 195–212. Amsterdam: Rodopi.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengelveld, Kees. 1990. The hierarchical structure of utterances. In Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 13], Jan Nuyts, A. Machtelt Bolkestein & Co Vet (eds), 101–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2009. Newspapers headlines and relevance: Ad hoc concepts in ad hoc contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 41(4): 699–720.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Mats. 2002. Clefts in English and Swedish: A Contrastive Study of It-clefts and Wh-clefts in Original Texts and Translations. PhD dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Korzen, Iørn. 2014. Cleft sentences. Italian-Danish in contrast. In Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic. Contrastive, Corpus-based Studies [Trends in Linguistics 281], Anna-Maria De Cesare (ed), 217–275. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen & Lamiroy, Beatrice. 2012. Word order in French, Spanish and Italian: A grammaticalization account. Folia Linguistica 46: 1–29.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. C’est ainsi que: Grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation ou les deux à la fois ? Journal of French Language Studies. <[URL]> (16 April 2017).
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3): 463–516.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1963. Analysis of the “cleft sentence” in English. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 16(4): 371–388.Google Scholar
Lonzi, Lidia. 1991. Il sintagma avverbiale. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 2, Lorenzo Renzi & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 341–412. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia & Schäfer, Martin. 2011. Adverbs and adverbials. In Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), 1392–1420. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Molinier, Christian & Levrier, Françoise. 2000. Grammaire des adverbes. Description des formes en -ment. Genève-Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Nøjgaard, Morten. 1992. Les adverbes français. Essai de description fonctionnelle, Vol. 1 [Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 66]. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2012. The English it-cleft: A Constructional Approach and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pecoraro, Walter & Pisacane, Chiara. 1984. L’avverbio. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54(4): 883–906.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995[4 2001]. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roggia, Carlo Enrico. 2008. Frasi scisse in italiano e francese orale: Evidenze dal C-ORAL-ROM. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 15: 9–29.Google Scholar
. 2009. Le frasi scisse in italiano. Struttura informativa e funzioni discorsive. Genève: Slatkine.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle & Sabio, Frédéric. 2015. Les clivées en C’EST LÀ QUE, C’EST LÀ OÙ: Structures et usages en français moderne. Repères DoRiF 6 [Recherches sur la syntaxe verbale en français et en italien. Hommage à Claire Blanche-Benveniste]. <[URL]> (16 April 2017).
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2013. Le parti del discorso. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo & Vanelli, Laura. 2004. Nuova grammatica italiana. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1): 31–55.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehr, Barbara. 2010. La phrase clivée en français: Problèmes de description. In Syntaxe, structure informationnelle et organisation du discours dans les langues romanes / Sintaxis, estructura de la información y organización del discurso en las lenguas románicas, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 189–214. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2015. Cleft constructions from a typological perspective. In Linguistique interactionnelle contrastive. Grammaire et interaction dans les langues romanes, Sabine Diao-Klaeger & Britta Thörle (eds), 191–221. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Wienen, Ursula. 2006. Zur Übersetzbarkeit markierter Kohäsionsformen. Eine funktionale Studie zum Kontinuum von Spaltadverbialen und Spaltkonnektoren im Spanischen, Französichen und Deutschen. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

De Paolis, Bianca Maria, Cecilia Andorno, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux & B. Hamma
2022. Constructions clivées en Français L1 et L2 (Italien L1). Premiers résultats d’une étude expérimentale. SHS Web of Conferences 138 ► pp. 09001 ff. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen
2022. Is focus a root phenomenon?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2018. French adverbial cleft sentences. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 32 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.