1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context
  4. Chapter

Contrasting c'est -clefts and it-clefts in discourse

image of Contrasting c'est -clefts and it-clefts in discourse

Although the French c’est-cleft and the English it-cleft appear at first glance to share similar syntactic and pragmatic properties (they are both what Lambrecht 1994 calls “argument focus” constructions), their use in discourse is not always the same. One finds a number of situations in which the c’est-cleft is required but the it-cleft is pragmatically odd. The reason for this discrepancy has to do with French prosodic restrictions that do not exist in English, thus creating a motivation for the cleft in French that is not found in English. In addition, various c’est-cleft types and c’est-cleft “lookalikes” in French correspond to different types of constructions in English, demonstrating the importance of analyzing naturally occurring discourse to determine pragmatic well-formedness.

References

  1. Bley-Vroman, Robert
    1986 “Hypothesis Testing in Second-Language A cquisition Theory.” Language Learning 36: 353–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1986.tb00559.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00559.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Carter-Thomas, Shirley
    2009 “The French C’est-cleft: Functional and Formal Motivations.”In La linguistique systémique fonctionelle et la langue française , ed. by David Banks , Simon Eason , and Janet Ormrod , 127–156. Paris: L’Harmattan.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Collins, Peter C
    1991  Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English . London and New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203202463.
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202463 [Google Scholar]
  4. Declerck, Renaat
    1988  Studies in Copular Sentences, Clefts, and Pseudo-clefts . Leuven: University Press. doi: 10.1515/9783110869330.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  5. Delin, Judy
    1995 “Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts.” Language and Cognitive Processes , 10 (2):97–120. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407089.
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407089 [Google Scholar]
  6. Destruel Johnson, Emilie
    2012  “An Empirical Study on the Meaning and Use of the French C’est-Cleft.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Donaldson, Bryan
    2012 “Syntax and Discourse in Near-Native F rench: Clefts and Focus.” Language Learning 62 (3):902–930. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00701.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00701.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay
    1995  Construction Grammar Coursebook . Ms. University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldberg, Adele
    1995  Constructions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gundel, Jeannette K
    1977 “Where do Cleft Sentences Come from?” Language 53 (3):543–559. doi: 10.2307/413176.
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413176 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hagen, L. Kirk , and Jean DeWitt
    1993 “Teaching French Cleft Constructions to English Speakers.” Canadian Modern Language Review 49: 550–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Jespersen, Otto
    1937  Analytic Syntax . London: Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Katz, Stacey L
    1997 “The Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of the C’est-Cleft Construction.”PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Katz, Stacey
    2000a “A Functional Approach to the Teaching of the French C’est-Cleft.” French Review 74 (2):248–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000b “Categories of C’est-Cleft Constructions.” Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 45 (3/4):1001–1021.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Katz, Stacey L. , and Carl Blyth
    2007  Teaching French Grammar in Context: Theory and Practice . New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kerr, Betsy
    1983 Minnesota Corpus. Available by request from the creator.
  18. Lambrecht, Knud
    1988 “Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French.”In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse , ed. by John Haiman , and Sandra A. Thompson , 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.18.08lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.08lam [Google Scholar]
  19. 1994  Information Structure and Sentence form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2001 “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics 39 (3):463–516. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.021.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010 “Constraints on Subject-Focus Mapping: A Contrastive Analysis.”In Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure , ed. by Carsten Breul , and Edward Göbbel , 77–100. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.165.04lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.165.04lam [Google Scholar]
  22. Prince, Ellen F
    1978 A Comparison of Wh-clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse. Language 54: 883–906. doi: 10.2307/413238.
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [Google Scholar]
  23. Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle
    1994 “Le sujet dans les énoncés pseudo-clivées.” Recherches sur le français parlé 14: 147–171.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998 “Constructions en c’est: les pseudo-clivées.” Cahiers de Grammaire 23: 81–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2000  Les constructions pseudo-clivées en français contemporain . Paris: Honoré Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Sornicola, Rosanna
    1988 “It-Clefts and WH-Clefts: Two Awkward Sentence Types.” Journal of Linguistics 24: 343–379. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011828.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011828 [Google Scholar]
  27. Vallduví, E
    1994 “The Dynamics of Information Packaging.”In Integrating information structure into constraint?based and categorical approaches , ed. by Elisbet Engdahl . Deliverable R1.3.B, DYANA–2 (BRA 6852), 1–26.Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Bley-Vroman, Robert
    1986 “Hypothesis Testing in Second-Language A cquisition Theory.” Language Learning 36: 353–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1986.tb00559.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00559.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Carter-Thomas, Shirley
    2009 “The French C’est-cleft: Functional and Formal Motivations.”In La linguistique systémique fonctionelle et la langue française , ed. by David Banks , Simon Eason , and Janet Ormrod , 127–156. Paris: L’Harmattan.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Collins, Peter C
    1991  Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English . London and New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203202463.
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202463 [Google Scholar]
  4. Declerck, Renaat
    1988  Studies in Copular Sentences, Clefts, and Pseudo-clefts . Leuven: University Press. doi: 10.1515/9783110869330.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  5. Delin, Judy
    1995 “Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts.” Language and Cognitive Processes , 10 (2):97–120. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407089.
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407089 [Google Scholar]
  6. Destruel Johnson, Emilie
    2012  “An Empirical Study on the Meaning and Use of the French C’est-Cleft.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Donaldson, Bryan
    2012 “Syntax and Discourse in Near-Native F rench: Clefts and Focus.” Language Learning 62 (3):902–930. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00701.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00701.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay
    1995  Construction Grammar Coursebook . Ms. University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldberg, Adele
    1995  Constructions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gundel, Jeannette K
    1977 “Where do Cleft Sentences Come from?” Language 53 (3):543–559. doi: 10.2307/413176.
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413176 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hagen, L. Kirk , and Jean DeWitt
    1993 “Teaching French Cleft Constructions to English Speakers.” Canadian Modern Language Review 49: 550–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Jespersen, Otto
    1937  Analytic Syntax . London: Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Katz, Stacey L
    1997 “The Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of the C’est-Cleft Construction.”PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Katz, Stacey
    2000a “A Functional Approach to the Teaching of the French C’est-Cleft.” French Review 74 (2):248–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000b “Categories of C’est-Cleft Constructions.” Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 45 (3/4):1001–1021.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Katz, Stacey L. , and Carl Blyth
    2007  Teaching French Grammar in Context: Theory and Practice . New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kerr, Betsy
    1983 Minnesota Corpus. Available by request from the creator.
  18. Lambrecht, Knud
    1988 “Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French.”In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse , ed. by John Haiman , and Sandra A. Thompson , 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.18.08lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.08lam [Google Scholar]
  19. 1994  Information Structure and Sentence form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2001 “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics 39 (3):463–516. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.021.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010 “Constraints on Subject-Focus Mapping: A Contrastive Analysis.”In Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure , ed. by Carsten Breul , and Edward Göbbel , 77–100. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.165.04lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.165.04lam [Google Scholar]
  22. Prince, Ellen F
    1978 A Comparison of Wh-clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse. Language 54: 883–906. doi: 10.2307/413238.
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [Google Scholar]
  23. Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle
    1994 “Le sujet dans les énoncés pseudo-clivées.” Recherches sur le français parlé 14: 147–171.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998 “Constructions en c’est: les pseudo-clivées.” Cahiers de Grammaire 23: 81–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2000  Les constructions pseudo-clivées en français contemporain . Paris: Honoré Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Sornicola, Rosanna
    1988 “It-Clefts and WH-Clefts: Two Awkward Sentence Types.” Journal of Linguistics 24: 343–379. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011828.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011828 [Google Scholar]
  27. Vallduví, E
    1994 “The Dynamics of Information Packaging.”In Integrating information structure into constraint?based and categorical approaches , ed. by Elisbet Engdahl . Deliverable R1.3.B, DYANA–2 (BRA 6852), 1–26.Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270597-pbns.244.10kat
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270597-pbns.244.10kat
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270597
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error