Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:35:14.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The architecture of it-clefts1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2013

LILIANE HAEGEMAN ,
ANDRÉ MEINUNGER  and
ALEKSANDRA VERCAUTEREN
LILIANE HAEGEMAN*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
ANDRÉ MEINUNGER*
Affiliation:
ZAS Berlin
ALEKSANDRA VERCAUTEREN*
Affiliation:
Ghent University & Universidade Nova de Lisboa
*
Author's address: (Haegeman) Linguistics Department, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 3, 9000 Gent, BelgiumLiliane.Haegeman@UGent.be
(Meinunger) Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Schützenstr. 18, D-10117 Berlin, Germanyandre@zas.gwz-berlin.de
(Vercauteren) Linguistics Department (GIST), Ghent University, Muinkkaai 42, 9000 Gent, BelgiumAleksandra.Vercauteren@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines quasi-monoclausal left-peripheral analyses of English it-clefts. Though attractive because such analyses bring out commonalities between it-clefts on the one hand and focus fronting and wh-questions on the other, the range of word order variations available in English it-clefts reveals that such monoclausal analyses of it-clefts lead to considerable complications of implementation, ultimately undoing the gain in terms of economy that initially would seem to justify them. In particular, we will show that, on closer inspection, the presumed focus fronting in it-clefts cannot be targeting the position deployed for ‘regular’ left-peripheral focus fronting. Moreover, both implementations of the monoclausal analysis discussed make the wrong predictions with respect to the distribution of it-clefts. In particular, as already argued by Hooper & Thompson (1973) and Emonds (1976), English it-clefting, unlike ‘regular’ focus fronting, is not a main clause phenomenon. Given these objections, we conclude that the left-peripheral analyses of it-clefts are ill-founded.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 269 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Liliane Haegeman's research is funded by FWO: 2009-Odysseus-Haegeman-G091409. André Meinunger's work was supported (in part) by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (Grant Nr. 01UG0711). Aleksandra Vercauteren's research is funded by FWO grant FWO11/ASP/258.

This paper was presented at the linguistics departments of the University of Geneva and of the University of Verona, at the LAGB 2011 (September, Manchester) and at Going Romance 2012 (December, Leuven). Thanks to the audiences and to David Adger, Adriana Belletti, Carsten Breul, Denis Delfitto, Karen Lahousse, Neil Smith, Genoveva Puskas, Matthew Reeve, Amélie Rocquet and Ur Shlonsky for discussion. Thanks to three anonymous referees of Journal of Linguistics for thorough and thought-provoking comments. On the basis of their comments and extensive suggestions we have been able to sharpen our minds about the core issues of our paper. Obviously, they are not responsible for the way we have used their comments.

References

REFERENCES

Abels, Klaus. 2008. Towards a restrictive theory of remnant movement. In Abdollahi, Fatemeh (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook, vol. 7, 53–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2012. The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 229–254.Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch. 2006. When verbal predicates go fronting. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46, 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aelbrecht, Lobke, Haegeman, Liliane & Nye, Rachel. 2012. Main clause phenomena: Syntax, semantics and information structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 149–168.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban. 2006. The correlative construction as a type of conditional clause. Presented at GLIF seminar, University Pompeu Fabra, 19 May 2006.Google Scholar
Authier, Jean Marc & Reed, Lisa. 2006. The diverse nature of non-interrogative wh. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 635–647.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, (ed.), 16–51.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2009. Structures and strategies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2011. Focus and the predicate of clefts. Presented at GIST3: Cartographic Structures and Beyond, Workshop at Ghent University.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, (ed.), 52–75.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Conditionals. In Everaert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. I, 638–687. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Is topic a Root phenomenon? Iberia 2.1. http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/article/viewArticle/23 (accessed 2 February 2013).Google Scholar
BNC. The British National Corpus Online Service. Mark Davies. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed November–December 2010).Google Scholar
Breul, Carsten. 2004. Focus structure in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, Ryan J. 2000. A typology of focal categories. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammatical analysis, 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clech-Darbon, Anne, Rialland, Annie & Rebuschi, Georges. 1999. Are there cleft sentences in French? In Tuller, Laurice & Rebuschi, Georges (eds.), The grammar of focus, 83–118. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COCA. The Corpus of Contemporary American English Online Service. Mark Davies. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ 8 (November–December 2010).Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to passive. Syntax 8, 81–120.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Leuven: University Press.Google Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P. 1981. Topics in the syntax and semantics of English cleft sentences. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P. 1984. The analysis of English cleft sentences. Linguistic Analysis 13, 63–113.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1996. Focus, pragmatic presupposition and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 475–523.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74, 245–273.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1999. The English cleft construction as a focus phrase. In Mereu, Lunella (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax, 271–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In Adger, David, DeCat, Cécile & Tsoulas, Georges (eds.), Peripheries, 75–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Winkler, & Schwabe, (eds.), 87–116.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca. 2009. (Pseudo)cleft constructions at the interfaces. Lingbuzz. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000841 (August 2012).Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca. In press. (Pseudo)clefts at the syntax–prosody–discourse interface. In Veenstra, Tonje, Hartmann, Katarina & Zimmerman, Malte (eds.), The structure of clefts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Göbbel, Edward. 1998. Focus movement in Romanian. In Benedicto, Elena, Romero, Maribel & Tomioka, Satoshi (eds.), Workshop on Focus (University of Massachusetts Working Papers in Linguistics 21), 83–99. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Göbbel, Edward. 2007. Focus and marked positions for VP adverbs. In Winkler, & Schwabe, (eds.), 275–300.Google Scholar
Grange, Corinne & Haegeman, Liliane. 1988. Subordinate clauses: Adjuncts or arguments. The status of het in Dutch. In Jaspers, Danny, Klooster, Wim, Putseys, Yvan & Seuren, Pieter (eds.), Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest, 155–173. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1984. Interjections and phrase structure. Linguistics 22, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000a. Negative preposing, the Neg criterion and the structure of CP. In Horn, Laurence & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.), Negation and polarity, 29–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000b. Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP. In Rowlett, Paul (ed.), The Salford Negation Conference: Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 98, 121–160.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena and the composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia. To appear. The syntacticization of discourse. In Folli, Raffaella, Sevdali, Christina & Truswell, Robert (eds.), Syntax and its limits. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara. 2010a. CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics 36, 111–152.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara. 2010b. Operator movement, referentiality and intervention. Theoretical Linguistics 36, 233–246.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76, 891–920.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Thompson, Sandra. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–479.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55, 39–75.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic syntax. London: Alan and Unwin.Google Scholar
Junghanns, Uwe. 1997. On the so-called èto-cleft constrcution. In Lindseth, Martina & Franks, Steven (eds.), The Sixth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguitics, 166–190. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1993. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Law, Paul. 2007. The syntactic structure of the cleft construction in Malagasy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 765–823.Google Scholar
Lee, Felicia. 2001. Wh- and Focus are not the same projection. In Megerdoomian, Karine & Barel, Leora Anne (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 20, 346–357. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Maeda, Masako. 2010. The Criterial freezing effect and split A′-movement. English Linguistics 27, 270–296.Google Scholar
Maki, Hideki, Kaiser, Lizanne & Ochi, Masao. 1999. Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua 109, 1–14.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 1998. A monoclausal structure for (pseudo-)cleft sentences. In Tamanji, Pius N. & Kusumoto, Kiyomi (eds.), North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 28, 283–298. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 2006. On different kinds of contrast. In Molnár, Valéria & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The architecture of focus, 197–233, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Pollock, Jean-Yves. 2004. On the left periphery of some Romance wh-questions. In Rizzi, (ed.), 251–296.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2010. Clefts. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2011. The syntactic structure of English clefts. Lingua 121, 142–171.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2012. Clefts and their relatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1993. Argument–adjunct (a)symmetries. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 22, 365–381. Amherst, MA: GLSA. [A revised version in Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Paths towards universal grammar, 361–376. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994.]Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 289–330. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position Int(errogative) in the left periphery of the clause. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Salvi, Giampolo (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 286–296. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004a. Locality and left periphery. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and beyond, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004b. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2: The structure of CP and IP (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Corver, Norbert & Cheng, Lai-Shen (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures: Criteria, freezing and interface effects. Presented at Ecole d'Automne de Linguistique, Paris: ENS, 16 September 2010.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2012. Cartography, criteria and labeling. Blaise Pascal Lectures, Ecole d'Automne de Linguistique. Paris: ENS, 11–14 September 2012.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfaying the Subject Criterion by a non subject: English Locative Inversion and Heavy NP Shift. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 341–262. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 2011. Quantifier-focalization in French and Italian. Handout presented at department of linguistics, KU Leuven, 21 March 2011.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva. http://theoling.auf.net/papers/starke_michal/.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Information packaging. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. , The Cambridge grammar of English, 1363–1447. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne & Schwabe, Kerstin (eds.). 2007. On information structure, meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar