Chapter 1
On the use of there-clefts with zero subject relativizer
This chapter investigates the use of there-clefts without a subject relativizer (e.g. There’s a man came into the bar) in contemporary British English, a much neglected construction that is often dismissed as non-standard. Using data from the Spoken British National Corpus 2014, the study shows that it is clearly attested, with a total of 170 instances, and thus more than just a marginal syntactic anomaly. Omission of the relativizer is most frequent with the presentational-eventive type, which narrowly outnumbers the specificational type (viz. enumerative-specificational and quantifying-specificational). The relative frequency of the former is attributed to its unique pragmatic function, combining a new predication with a new referent. Structurally, this type is analysed as mono-clausal with an invariable existential prefix there’s.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.
There-clefts: Charting the territory
- 3.Delimitation and corpus retrieval
- 4.Overall frequencies
- 5.Enumerative specificational there-cleft
- 6.Quantifying-specificational there-cleft
- 7.Presentational-eventive there-cleft
- 8.Discussion: The discourse functions of there-clefts without relativizer
- 9.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (51)
References
Allerton, David J. & Cruttenden, Alan. 1979. Three reasons for accenting a definite subject. Journal of Linguistics 15: 49–53. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Also published as Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Breivik, Leiv Egil & Martínez-Insua, Ana E. 2008. Grammaticalization, subjectification and non-concord in English existential sentences. English Studies 89(3): 351–362. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Collins, Peter. 1992. Cleft existentials in English. Language Sciences 14(4): 419–433. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, Kristin. 1999a. Are there sentences that can be analyzed as there-clefts? In Thinking English Grammar. To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus, Guy Tops, Betty Devriendt & Steven Geukens (eds), 177–193. Leuven: Peeters.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, Kristin. 1999b. The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 10(3): 203–250. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, Kristin. 2000. A constructional approach to clefts. Linguistics 38: 1101–1131. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, Kristin. 2014. On specificational there-clefts. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 1–34.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, Kristin & Njende, Ngum Meyuhnsi. 2019. Enumerative there-clauses and there-clefts. Specification and information structure. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 51(2): 160–191. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Dordrecht: Foris. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erdmann, Peter. 1980. On the history of subject contact clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 139–170. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gentens, Caroline. 2016. The discursive status of extraposed object clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 96: 15–31. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–246. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hannay, Michael. 1985. English Existentials in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harris, Martin & Vincent, Nigel. 1980. On zero relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 11(4): 805–807.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Higgins, Francis. 1976. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney. 1971. The Sentence in Written English. A Syntactic Study Based on an Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ihalainen, Ossi. 1980. Relative clauses in the dialect of Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81: 187–196.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2015. Processibility. In Corpus Pragmatics. A Handbook, Karin Aijmer & Christoph Rühlemann (eds), 117–142. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kortmann, Bernd & Schneider, Edgar (eds). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English. A Multimedia Reference Tool. Berlin: Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgement. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, Knud. 1988.
There was a farmer had a dog. Syntactic amalgams revisited. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society, Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster (eds), 319–339. Berkeley CA: BLS. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001a. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3): 463–516. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lehmann, Hans Martin. 2002. Zero-subject relative constructions in American and British English. In New Frontiers in Corpus Research, Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds), 163–177. Amsterdam: Rodopi.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Semantics from Different Points of View, Rainer Bauerle, Urs Egli & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 172–187. Berlin: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew & Brezina, Vaclav. 2017. The spoken BNC2014. Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22: 319–344.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nagucka, Ruta. 1980. Grammatical peculiarities of the contact-clause in EModE. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 171–184.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Orton, Harold, Sanderson, Stewart & Widdowson, John. 1978. The Linguistic Atlas of England. London: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Patten, Amanda. 2012. The English It-Cleft: A Constructional Account and Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perlman, Alan. 1969. “This” as a third article in American English. American Speech 44(1): 76–80. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 88–907. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geoffrey. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rühlemann, Chris. 2007. Conversation in Context. A Corpus-Driven Approach. London: Continuum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Theticity. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds), 255–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tottie, Gunnel & Johansson, Christine. 2015.
Here is an Old Mastiffe Bitch ø Stands Barking at Mee. Zero subject relativizers in Early Modern English (t)here-constructions. In From Clerks to Corpora. Essays on the English Language Yesterday and Today, Philip Shaw, Britt Erman, Gunnel Melchers & Peter Sundkvist (eds), 135–153. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van den Eynden, Nadine. 1993. Syntactic Variation and Unconscious Linguistic Change. A Study of Adjectival Relative Clauses in the Dialects of Dorset. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wald, Benji. 1983. Referents and topic within and across discourse units. Observations from current vernacular English. In Discourse Perspectives on Syntax, Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.), 91–116. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yaguchi, Michiko. 2010. The historical development of the phrase there’s. An analysis of the Oxford English Dictionary Data. English Studies 91(2): 203–224. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Davidse, Kristin, Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende & Gerard O’Grady
2023.
Structural Assemblies and Semantics of the Four Existential Constructions with Relative Clause. In
Specificational and Presentational There-Clefts,
► pp. 75 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Davidse, Kristin, Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende & Gerard O’Grady
2023.
Introduction. In
Specificational and Presentational There-Clefts,
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Davidse, Kristin, Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende & Gerard O’Grady
2023.
Paradigms of Relative Markers. In
Specificational and Presentational There-Clefts,
► pp. 49 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.