Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:01:50.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cleft Sentences: Form, Function, and Translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Klaus Fischer*
Affiliation:
London Metropolitan University
*
London Metropolitan University, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Languages, and Education, Tower Building, 166-220 Holloway Road, London, N7 8DB, UK, [k.fischer@londonmet.ac.uk]

Abstract

Although cleft sentences are possible constructions in both English and German, they are far more frequent in English texts. Durrell (2002: 479) observes in his Hammer's German Grammar and Usage that “with the exception of the type Er war es, der mich davon abhielt […], cleft sentence constructions sound unnatural in German and should be avoided.” The article discusses the form and function of cleft sentences in the context of other focusing devices. It shows that, although German and English cleft sentences have the same information structure, their stylistic value is very different. Using a short translation, Durrell's observation is confirmed: in translating cleft sentences into German, semantic equivalence is often sacrificed for stylistic appropriateness. Although structural features of both languages are the ultimate cause of the contrast, they cannot explain choices in each individual case. The article argues that structural typology should be complemented with a typology of parole: the respective frequencies of cleft sentences in both languages reflect neatly into the more verbal style, more hierarchical sentence construction and, in certain respects, greater semantic transparency of English texts (by comparison with their German counterparts).*

Type
ARTICLES
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2009

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

Source texts

Carter, Ronald, & Michael, McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English. A comprehensive guide. Spoken and written English. Grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, Monica. 1999. Clefts in translations between English and German. Target 11(2).289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monica. 2001. Cleft-like sentences. Linguistics 39.607–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Duden. 2006. Die Grammatik. Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 1992. Using German. A guide to contemporary usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 2002. Hammer's German grammar and usage. 4th ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Vol. 2: Der Satz. 3rd edn. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich. 1988. Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich. 2004. Deutsche Grammatik. Neubearbeitung. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Fischer, Klaus. 2007. Komplexität und semantische Transparenz im Deutschen und Englischen. Sprachwissenschaft 32.4.355–405.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Huber, Stefan. 2002. Es-Clefts und det-Clefts. Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Geoffrey K., Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johansson, Mats. 2001. Clefts in contrast: A contrastive study of it clefts and wh clefts in English and Swedish texts and translations. Linguistics 39.547–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 2001. The German and Norwegian correspondences to the English construction type that's what. Linguistics 39.583–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39.463–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54.883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney, Greenbaum, Geoffrey, Leech, & Jan, Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar. A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Monika S. 1999. Translating the elusive. Marked word order and subjectivity in English-German translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger, Hoffmann, & Bruno, Strecker et al. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Funke, Cornelia. 2000. Der Herr der Diebe. Hamburg: Dressler. (= HD)Google Scholar
Funke, Cornelia. 2002. The Thief Lord. Translated by Latsch, Oliver. Frome, Somerset: The Chicken House. (= HDE)Google Scholar
Rowling, J.K. 1997. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. London: Bloomsbury. (= HP)Google Scholar
Rowling, Joanne K. 1998. Harry Potter und der Stein der Weisen. Translated by Klaus, Fritz.Hamburg: Carlsen. (= HPG)Google Scholar
Funke, Cornelia. 2000. Der Herr der Diebe. Hamburg: Dressler. (= HD)Google Scholar
Funke, Cornelia. 2002. The Thief Lord. Translated by Latsch, Oliver. Frome, Somerset: The Chicken House. (= HDE)Google Scholar
Rowling, J.K. 1997. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. London: Bloomsbury. (= HP)Google Scholar
Rowling, Joanne K. 1998. Harry Potter und der Stein der Weisen. Translated by Klaus, Fritz.Hamburg: Carlsen. (= HPG)Google Scholar