Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T21:05:58.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some restrictions on clefts that highlight predicate nominals1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Renaat Declerck
Renaat Declerck
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Leuven, Campus Kortrijk, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that a cleft whose focal item functions as predicate nominal in the WH/that-clause is often unacceptable, or at least questionable:

(I) (a) *It's a genius that he is. (Leech & Svartvik, 1975: 181)

(b) *It's a conductor that John is. (Stockwell et al. 1977:107)

(c) *It's the football coach that John is. (Emonds, 1976:140)In this article I will investigate different types of clefts highlighting predicate nominals. I will point out five different restrictions that may lead to partial or complete unacceptability and develop a theory that can account for them.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 131 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Akmajian, A. (1979). Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J. (1978). The notion of ‘givenness’ and its relation to presupposition and to theme. Lingua 44. 133–168.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.Google Scholar
Barry, R. (1975). Topic in Chinese: an overlap of meaning, grammar and discourse function. In Grossman, R. E., San, L. J. & Vance, T. J. (eds), CLS Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context, the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972a). A look at equatives and cleft sentences. In Firchow, E. S. et al. (eds), Studies for Einar Haugen. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972b). That's that. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Discourse processes: advances in research and theory. Vol. I. Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1982). On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs, TL 9. 161–179.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1983a). On the pragmatics of it-clefts and WH-clefts. MS.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1983b). ‘It is Mr. Y’ or ‘He is Mr. Y,’ Lingua 59. 209–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. (1983c). Predicational clefts. Lingua 61. 9–45.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X., Devriendt, B., Tops, G. & Geukens, S. (1979). Foundations of English grammar. Antwerpen: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. (1977). Une analyse non présuppositionnelle de l'effet contrastif – L'extraction dans c'est…que et la négation, LInv I. 39–62.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1977a). Role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1977b). Where do cleft sentences come from? Lg 53. 543–559.Google Scholar
Hajičova, E. & Sgall, P. (1975). Topic and focus in transformational grammar, PIL 8. 3–58.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. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English, FL 6. 322–361.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1982). A short introduction to functional grammar. University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Harries-Delisle, H. (1978). Contrastive emphasis and cleft sentences. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed), Universals of human language. Vol. 4. Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. (1976). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. (1971). The sentence in written English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, W. J. (1975). Subjects, themes and case grammar, Lingua 35. 101–133.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1958). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 7. Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin; Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. O. & Schieffelin, B. B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1975). Dutch as an SOV language, LAn I. 111–136.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1970). Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In Jakobsen, R. & Kawamoto, S. (eds), Studies in general and oriental linguistics. Tokyo: TEC Corp. for Lang. and Ed. Research.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1975). Conditions for verb phrase deletion, FL 13. 161–175.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Wongkhomthong, P. (1981). Characterizational and identificational sentences in Thai, SLang. 5 65–109.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. & Savin, H. B. (1971). The projection problem for presuppositions. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1963). Analysis of the ‘cleft sentence’ in English, ZPhon 16. 371–388.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1928). A grammar of late modern English. Part I. The sentence. First half. The elements of the sentence. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse, Lg 54. 883–906.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Elliott, D. E. & Bean, M. C. (1977). Workbook in syntactic theory and analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Strawson, P.F. (1959). Individuals. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1970). An historical syntax of the English language. Part l. Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar