Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:56:20.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It-Clefts and Wh-clefts: two awkward sentence types1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Rosanna Sornicola
Rosanna Sornicola
Affiliation:
University of Naples
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The aim of this paper is to examine two constructions, It-Cleft Sentences (e.g. It is me who/that wrote the book) and Wh-Cleft Sentences (e.g. The one who wrote the book is me), which constitute a problematic area of contemporary research in grammar.

It-Cleft Sentences and Wh-Cleft Sentences (henceforth ICS and WCS, respectively) appear in a number of languages which are typologically different from each other, and have some, but not all, of their characteristics in common. In Malayalam, for example, in the configuration of the ICS, S¯ is not recognizable: cf. Mohanan, 1978. Both ICS and WCS are present in many European languages (although ICS seem to have a more limited geographic distribution) and in Chinese. In the Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew) only the WCS type occurs. The present paper will deal mainly with English constructions and will also present, at the syntactic level, a comparative analysis between the constructions in English and the corresponding constructions in the Romance languages (French, Italian and Spanish). This comparison is useful in that it allows us to study the existence of a field of variability in the syntactic properties characterizing the way these types of sentences are realized in European languages.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 343 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Agozzino, D. (1986). ‘Enfasi e segmentazione: alcuni problemi concernenti la struttura informativa’. Atti del III Convegno italo-austriaco dei linguisti: Sintassi dell'italiano contemporaneo (Graz, 27–31 maggio 1985), Tübingen, Narr. 11–20.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. (1970). On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. LIn. 1. 149–168.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-Clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised Standard Version). In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics, New York: Academic Press. 1–61.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1956). La nature des pronoms. In Halle, M. et al. , (eds), For Roman Jakobson, The Hague, Mouton, reprinted in Benveniste, E. Problèmes de linguistique générale, Paris: Gallimard, (1966). 251–257.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations, I: Bounded versus unbounded transformations. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds), Formal syntax, New York: Academic Press. 157–196.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. (1983). Dialogue games. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On Wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1. 267–280.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1968). On the prosodie features of the modern English finite verb as means of the functional sentence perspective. Brno Studies in English 7. 11–48.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. (1977). Where do cleft sentences come from?. Lg 53. 543–559.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English', part 2, JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). Some aspects of the thematic organization of the English clause, Santa Monica, The Rand Corporation (memorandum R.M. 5224 P-R), quoted from Theme and Information in the English Clause, Kress, G. (Ed.), Halliday: system and function in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 174–188.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1974). On the non-cyclic nature of Wh-clefting. Proceedings of the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 221–233.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, P.-K. (1978). The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions, Texas Linguistic Forum 11, Austin, Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Harries-Delisle, H. (1978). Contrastive emphasis and cleft sentences. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of human language, 4. Syntax, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 419–486.Google Scholar
Harris, M. & Vincent, N. (1980). On zero relatives. LIn 11. 805–807.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1974). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles, i–vii. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1976). Towards a Universal Definition of ‘Subject’. In Li, , (Chi, N.) (ed.), Subject and topic, New York: Academic Press. 303–333.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H. (1960). Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. (1985). Su alcune proprietà della sintassi e della forma logica delle frasi copulari. Franchi-De Bellis, A. & Savoia, L. (eds), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d'uso, Roma: Bulzoni. 211–223.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1978). Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge (Mass.). The MIT Press, 504–589.Google Scholar
Pike, K. C. & Pike, E. G. (1982). Grammatical analysis (Publication in Linguistics 53). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pinkham, H. & Hankamer, J. (1975). Deep and shallow clefts. Proceedings of the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 429–450.Google Scholar
Price, E. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and It-clefts in discourse. Lg 54. 883–906.Google Scholar
Sornicola, R. (1981). Sul parlato. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Sornicola, R. (1985). Un metodo di analisi della struttura informativa e sue applicazioni all'italiano. Franchi de Bellis, A., & Savoia, L. (eds), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d'uso. Teorie e applicazioni descrittive, Atti del XVII Congresso della S.L.I. Roma: Bulzoni. 3–18.Google Scholar
Sornicola, R. (1986). Costituenza, dipendenza e la struttura tema-rema in italiano. In Stammerjohann, H. (ed.) Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Theme-Rheme in Italian’ (Frankfurt, April 26–27, 1985). Tübingen: Narr, 121–139.Google Scholar
Sornicola, R. (in press). Il relatico in irlandese antico. Una riconsiderazione. If 93.Google Scholar
Sornicola, R. (in press). Origine e diffusione delle frasi scisse nelle lingue romanze. Actes du XVIIIe Congrès International de linguistique et philologie romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Svoboda, A. (1968). The hierarchy of communicative units and fields as illustrated by English attributive constructions. Brno Studies in English 7. 49–101.Google Scholar