1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Belgian Journal of Linguistics
  4. Volume 32, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this article we present an overview of current debates in the analysis of cleft sentences. The types of sentences that are often seen as prototypical examples of the cleft category are introduced by or a cross-linguistic equivalent; in addition, they have specificational semantics and a focus-background information structure articulation. We argue here that other, less prototypical types of constructions, which have received less attention, also belong to the cleft category: sentences that are introduced by expressions such as and (and their cross-linguistic equivalents), as well as sentences introduced by which do not have specificational semantics and which express other types of information structure articulations (e.g. all-focus or topic-comment). We argue that it is fruitful to analyse these ‘non-prototypical’ clefts in more depth, not only to come to a better understanding about these sentence types in their own right, but also to arrive at insights in the phenomenon of ‘clefts’ in general.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00014.kar
2019-01-21
2024-12-01

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00014.kar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ashby, William J.
    1999 “Au sujet de quoi? La fonction du sujet grammatical, du complément d’objet direct, et de la construction présentative en français parlé.” The French Review72 (3): 481–492.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Belletti, Adriana
    2008 “The CP of Clefts.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa33: 191–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 “Answering Strategies: New Information Subjects and the Nature of Clefts.” InStructures and Strategies. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2012 “Revisiting the CP of Clefts.” InDiscourse and Grammar. From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories, ed. byEde Zimmermann, and Günther Grewendorf, 91–114. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614511601.91
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.91 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013 “The Focus Map of Clefts: Extraposition and Predication.” InWhere Do We Go from Here? Chapters in Syntactic Cartography, ed. byUr Shlonsky, 42–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berretta, Monica
    1995 “Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso /1: ‘C’è il gatto che ha fame’.” Italiano e Oltre53: 79–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
    2006 “Les clivées françaises de type: c’est comme ça que, c’est pour ça que, cest là que tout a commencé.” Moderna Språk100 (2): 273–287.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Casalicchio, Jan
    2013a “The Pseudo-Relatives and Other Correspondent Constructions in the Romance Languages.” InProceedings of the 4th Austrian Students’ Conference of Linguistics, ed. byIrina Windhaber, and Peter Anreiter, 64–84. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013b Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle varietà romanze: Affinità (solo) superficiali e corrispondenze strutturali. München: LINCOM Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi-Jonin, Injoo, and Véronique Lagae
    2005 “Il y a des gens ils ont mauvais caractère. À propos du rôle de il y a.” InSens et références. Mélanges Georges Kleiber, ed. byAdolfo Murguía, 39–66. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clech-Darbon, Anne, Georges Rebuschi, and Annie Rialland
    1999 “Are There Cleft Sentences in French?” InThe Grammar of Focus, ed. byLaurice Tuller, and Georges Rebuschi, 83–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.24.04cle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.24.04cle [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins, Peter C.
    1991 Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203202463
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202463 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1992 “Cleft Existentials in English.” Language Sciences14 (4): 419–433. 10.1016/0388‑0001(92)90024‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(92)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Conti, Virginie
    2010 “La construction en avoir SN qui SV (« J’ai ma copine qui habite à Paris ») : Une forme de dispositif clivé ?” Linx62–63: 63–87. 10.4000/linx.1353
     https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.1353 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cruschina, Silvio
    2014 “Some Notes on Clefting and Fronting.” InStructures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. byElisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 181–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.223.09cru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.09cru [Google Scholar]
  16. Davidse, Kristin
    1999 “The Semantics of Cardinal versus Enumerative Existential Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics10 (3): 203–250.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 “A Constructional Approach to Clefts.” Linguistics38 (6): 1101–1131. 10.1515/ling.2000.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2000.022 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 “On Specificational There-Clefts.” Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics: 1–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Davidse, Kristin, and Ditte Kimps
    2016 “Specificational There-Clefts: Functional Structure and Information Structure.” English Text Construction9 (1): 115–142. 10.1075/etc.9.1.07dav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.07dav [Google Scholar]
  20. De Cesare, Anna-Maria
    2007 “Sul cosidetto ‘c’è presentativo’. Forme e funzioni.” InLessico, grammatica e testualità, tra italiano scritto e parlato, ed. byAnna-Maria De Cesare, and Angela Ferrari, 127–153. Basel: University of Basel.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2012 “Riflessioni sulla diffusione delle costruzioni scisse nell’italiano giornalistico odierno a partire dalla loro manifestazione nei lanci di agenzia in italiano e in inglese.” Cuadernos de Filología Italiana19: 11–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. De Cesare, Anna-Maria, and Davide Garassino
    2015 “On the Status of Exhaustiveness in Cleft Sentences: An Empirical and Cross-Linguistic Study of English Also-/Only-Clefts and Italian Anche-/Solo-Clefts.” Folia Linguistica49 (1): 1–56. 10.1515/flin‑2015‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. (eds) 2016 Current Issues in Romance Non-Canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Davide Garassino, Rocío Agar Marco, Ana Albom, and Doriana Cimmino
    2016 Sintassi marcata dell’italiano dell’uso medio in prospettiva contrastiva con il francese, lo spagnolo, il tedesco e l’inglese. Uno studio basato sulla scrittura dei quotidiani online. Ed. byElmar Schafroth, and Marcella Costa, Linguistica Contrastiva/Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Davide Garassino, Rocío Agar Marco, and Laura Baranzini
    2014 “Form and Frequency of Italian Cleft Constructions in a Corpus of Electronic News: A Comparative Perspective with French, Spanish, German and English.” InFrequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic: Contrastive, Corpus-Based Studies, ed. byAnna-Maria De Cesare, 49–99. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. De Cesare, Anna Maria
    2017 “Cleft Constructions.” InManual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, ed. byAndreas Dufter, and Elisabeth Stark. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110377088‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377088-015 [Google Scholar]
  27. De Stefani, Elwys
    2008 “De la malléabilité des structures syntaxiques dans l’interaction orale: Le cas des constructions clivées.” In1er Congrès Mondial De Linguistique Française, ed. byJ. Durand, B. Habert, and B. Laks, 703–720. Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2009 “Le strutture grammaticali come epifenomeni dell’interazione sociale? riflessioni sull’uso delle costruzioni scisse nel parlato conversazionale italiano e francese.” InSintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano: subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione: Atti del X congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Basilea, 30 Giugno-3 Luglio 2008, 1615–1631. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Declerck, Renaat
    1983 “Predicational Clefts.” Lingua61 (1): 9–45. 10.1016/0024‑3841(83)90023‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(83)90023-2 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1984 “The Pragmatics of It-Clefts and Wh-Clefts.” Lingua64 (4): 251–289. 10.1016/0024‑3841(84)90065‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(84)90065-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1988 Studies on Copular Sentences, Cleſts and Pseudo-Clefts. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110869330
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  32. Delin, Judy
    1992 “Properties of It-Cleft Presuppositions.” Journal of Semantics9 (4): 289–306. 10.1093/jos/9.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  33. Den Dikken, Marcel
    2013 “Predication and Specification in the Syntax of Cleft Sentences.” InCleft Structures, ed. byKatharina Hartmann, and Tonjes Veenstra, 35–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.208.02dik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.02dik [Google Scholar]
  34. Destruel, Emilie
    2012 “The French C’est-Cleft: An Empirical Study on its Meaning and Use.” InEmpirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, ed. byChristopher Piñón, 95–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2013 “The French C’est-Cleft: Empirical Studies of its Meaning and Use.” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
  36. Destruel, Emilie, and Leah Velleman
    2014 “Refining Contrastiveness. Empirical Evidence from the English It-Cleft.” InSelected Papers from CFFP 2013, ed. byCristopher Piñon, 197–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Doetjes, Jenny, Georges Rebuschi, and Annie Rialland
    2004 “Cleft Sentences.” InHandbook of French Semantics, ed. byFrancis Corblin, and Henriëtte De Swart, 529–552. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Dufter, Andreas
    2006 “Zwischen Kompositionalität und Konventionalisierung: Satzspaltung mit C’est im Französischen der Gegenwart.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch57: 31–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2008 “On Explaining the Rise of C’est-Clefts in French.” InThe Paradox of Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Romance, ed. byUlrich Detges, and Richard Waltereit, 31–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.293.03duf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.293.03duf [Google Scholar]
  40. 2009a “Beyond Focus Marking: Fine-Tuning the Evolution of Cleft Types from Latin to Modern French.” Paper presented at theDGfS-Jahrestagung 31. AG 9: Focus Marking Strategies and Focus Interpretation, Osnabrück.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 2009b “Clefting and Discourse Organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance.” InFocus and Background in Romance Languages, ed. byAndreas Dufter, and Daniel Jacob, 83–121. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.112.05duf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.05duf [Google Scholar]
  42. Frascarelli, Mara, and Francesca Ramaglia
    2013 “(Pseudo)Clefts at the Syntax-Prosody-Discourse Interface.” InCleft Structures, ed. byTonjes Veenstra, and Katharina Hartmann, 97–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.208.04fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.04fra [Google Scholar]
  43. Furukawa, Naoyo
    1996 Grammaire de la prédication seconde. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Garassino, Davide
    2014 “Le frasi scisse nei testi giornalistici online: Italiano e inglese a confronto.” InAtti del XII Convegno Silfi (Helsinki, 18–20 June 2012), ed. byEnrico Garavelli, and Elina Suomela-Härmä, 631–640. Firenze: Cesati.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Gundel, Jeanette K.
    2006 “Clefts in English and Norwegian: Implications for the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface.” InThe Architecture of Focus, ed. byValéria Molnar, and Susanne Winkler, 517–548. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110922011.517
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.517 [Google Scholar]
  46. Haegeman, Liliane, André Meinunger, and Aleksandra Vercauteren
    2014a “Against the Matrix Left Peripheral Analysis of English It-Clefts.” InRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012: Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Leuven 2012, ed. byKaren Lahousse, and Stefania Marzo, 91–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/rllt.6.04hae
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.6.04hae [Google Scholar]
  47. 2014b “The Architecture of It-Clefts.” Journal of Linguistics50 (2): 269–296. 10.1017/S0022226713000042
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226713000042 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hartmann, Jutta M.
    2016 “Freezing in It-Clefts.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique58 (03): 487–496. 10.1017/S000841310000267X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S000841310000267X [Google Scholar]
  49. Hedberg, Nancy
    2006 “Topic-Focus Controversies.” InThe Architecture of Focus, ed. byValeria Molnar, and Susanne Winkler, 373–397. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110922011.373
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.373 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hedberg, Nancy Ann
    1990 “Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English.” PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.
  51. 2013 “Multiple Focus and Cleft Sentences.” InCleft Structures, ed. byKatharina Hartmann, and Tonjes Veenstra, 227–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.208.08hed
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.08hed [Google Scholar]
  52. Hedberg, Nancy Ann, and Lorna Fadden
    2007 “The Information Structure of It-Clefts, Wh-Clefts and Reverse Wh-Clefts in English.” InThe Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, ed. byNancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski, 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.155.05hed
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.155.05hed [Google Scholar]
  53. Hedberg, Nancy, and S.-E. Jhang
    1994 “Clefts and Pseudoclefts in Korean and Mandarin.” Proceedings of the annual conference – Canadian Linguistic Association: 247–256.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Heycock, Caroline
    2012 “Specification, Equation, and Agreement in Copular Sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de Linguistique57 (2): 209–240. 10.1017/S0008413100004758
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100004758 [Google Scholar]
  55. Jacob, Daniel
    2015 “Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text – Rhetorik.” InInformationsstrukturen in Kontrast: Strukturen, Kompositionen und Strategien, ed. bySéverine Adam, Daniel Jacob, and Michael Schecker, 101–122. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑05534‑4
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05534-4 [Google Scholar]
  56. Jullien, Stéphane
    2014 “Syntaxe et dialogue. Les configurations syntaxiques impliquant “il y a”.” PhD thesis, Université de Neuchatêl, Université Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle.
  57. Karssenberg, Lena
    2016a “French il y a Clefts, Existential Sentences and the Focus-Marking Hypothesis.” Journal of French Language Studies27 (3): 405–430. 10.1017/S0959269516000296
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269516000296 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2016b “ Il n’y a que superman qui porte le slip par-dessus le pantalon: Les clivées en il n’y a que x qui.” In5e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 1–14. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 2017 “ Ya les oiseaux qui chantent. A Corpus Analysis of French il y a Clefts.” PhD dissertation, Linguistics Department, KU Leuven.
  60. 2018a “ Il y a toujours un chameau qui tombe. Les multiples fonctions des clivées en il y a.” In6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 1–13. SHS Web of Conferences.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2018b Non-Prototypical Clefts in French: A Corpus Analysis of il y a Clefts. Ed. byClaudia Polzin-Haumann, and Wolfgang Schweickard, Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Romanische Philologie. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110586435
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110586435 [Google Scholar]
  62. Karssenberg, Lena, and Karen Lahousse
    2017 “Les SN définis et indéfinis dans les clivées en il y a.” InContraintes linguistiques. À propos de la complémentation nominale, ed. byCaroline Lachet, Luis Meneses-Lerín, and Audrey Roig, 197–210. Brussels: PIE Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 2018 “The Information Structure of French il y a Clefts and c’est Clefts: A Corpus-Based Analysis.” Linguistics56 (3): 513–548.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Karssenberg, Lena, Karen Lahousse, and Stefania Marzo
    2018 “Les clivées en voici/voilà: Une analyse de corpus.” Lingvisticae Investigationes41 (1): 129–151. 10.1075/li.00016.kar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00016.kar [Google Scholar]
  65. Karssenberg, Lena, Stefania Marzo, Karen Lahousse, and Daniela Guglielmo
    2018 “There’s More to Italian C’è Clefts Than Marking All-Focus.” Italian Journal of Linguistics29 (2): 57–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Katz, Stacy
    2000 “Categories of C’est-Cleft Constructions.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique45 (2): 253–273. 10.1017/S0008413100017709
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100017709 [Google Scholar]
  67. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche
    2007 The Que/Qui Alternation: New Analytical Directions. Lingbuzz. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000638 [last access: 26.03.2018].
     [Google Scholar]
  68. La Fauci, Nunzio, Heike Necker, Sophia Simon, and Liana Tronci
    2010 “Costrutti con c’è e nome proprio in una telecronaca sportiva: Configurazioni funzionali e valori testuali.” Congresso internazionale del Gruppo di Studio sulla Comunicazione parlata 3, Napoli, 23–25February 2009.
  69. Lagae, Véronique, and Christine Rouget
    1998 “Quelques réflexions sur les relatives prédicatives.” InAnalyse linguistique et approches de l’oral. Recueil d’études offert en hommage à Claire Blanche-Benveniste, ed. byMireille Bilger, Karel Van den Eynde, and Françoise Gadet, 313–325. Leuven/Paris: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Lahousse, Karen
    2007 “Specificational Sentences and Word Order in Romance: A Functional Analysis.” Folia Linguistica41 (3–4): 357–404. 10.1515/flin.41.3‑4.357
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.41.3-4.357 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2009 “Specificational Sentences and the Influence of Information Structure on (Anti-) Connectivity Effects.” Journal of Linguistics45 (1): 139–166. 10.1017/S0022226708005549
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226708005549 [Google Scholar]
  72. Lahousse, Karen, and Marijke Borremans
    2014 “The Distribution of Functional-Pragmatic Types of Clefts in Adverbial Clauses.” Linguistics52 (3): 793–836. 10.1515/ling‑2014‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0009 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lahousse, Karen, Christopher Laenzlinger, and Gabriela Soare
    2014 “Contrast and Intervention at the Periphery.” Lingua143: 56–85. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lahousse, Karen, and Béatrice Lamiroy
    2015 “C’est ainsi que: Grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation ou les deux à la fois ?” Journal of French Language Studies27 (2): 161–185. 10.1017/S0959269515000381
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269515000381 [Google Scholar]
  75. Lambrecht, Knud
    1988 “Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French.” InClause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, ed. byJohn Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson, 135–179. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.08lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.08lam [Google Scholar]
  76. 1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2000a “Prédication seconde et structure informationnelle: La relative de perception comme construction présentative.” Langue française127 (1): 49–66. 10.3406/lfr.2000.998
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.2000.998 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2000b “When Subjects Behave Like Objects: A Markedness Analysis of Sentence-Focus Constructions across Languages.” Studies in Language24 (3): 611–682. 10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam [Google Scholar]
  79. 2001 “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics39 (3): 463–516. 10.1515/ling.2001.021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021 [Google Scholar]
  80. 2002 “Topic, Focus and Secondary Predication. The French Presentational Relative Construction.” InRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, ed. byClaire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi, 171–212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.232.11lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.232.11lam [Google Scholar]
  81. Léard, Jean-Marcel
    1992 Les gallicismes. Étude syntaxique et sémantique. Paris/Leuven: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Marzo, Stefania, and Claudia Crocco
    2015 “Tipicità delle costruzioni presentative per l’italiano neostandard.” Revue Romane50 (1): 30–50. 10.1075/rro.50.1.02cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.50.1.02cro [Google Scholar]
  83. Mertens, Piet
    2012 “La prosodie des clivées.” InPenser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste, ed. bySandrine Caddéo, Marie-Noëlle Roubaud, Magali Rouquier, and Frédéric Sabio, 127–139. Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Mørdrup, Ole
    1976 “Sur la classification des adverbes en -ment”. Revue RomaneXI (2): 317–333.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Naegeli Frutschi, Urs
    1987 Les adverbes de phrase: leur définition et leur emploi en français contemporain. Zürich: Zentralstelle der Studentenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Piotrowski, Jennifer A.
    2009 “Information Structure of Clefts in Spoken English.” PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
  87. Prince, Ellen F.
    1978 “A Comparison of Wh-Clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse.” Language54 (4): 883–906. 10.2307/413238
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [Google Scholar]
  88. Rothenberg, Mira
    1979 “Les propositions relatives prédicatives et attributives: Problème de linguistique française.” Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris74: 351–395.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle
    1998 “Constructions en c’est: Les pseudo-clivées.” Cahiers de grammaire23: 81–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 2000 Les constructions pseudo-clivées en français contemporain. Paris: Honoré Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 2005 “Une construction trop peu exploitée, la construction pseudo-clivée.” InLa linguistique de corpus, ed. byGeoffrey Williams, 93–100. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle, and Frédéric Sabio
    2015 “Les clivées en c’est là où et c’est là que: Structure et usages en français moderne.” Repères DoRiF6 (Recherches sur la syntaxe verbale en français et en italien. Hommage à Claire Blanche-Benveniste): 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Rouquier, Magali
    2007 “Les constructions clivées en ancien français et en moyen français.” Romania125: 167–212. 10.3406/roma.2007.1394
     https://doi.org/10.3406/roma.2007.1394 [Google Scholar]
  94. 2015 L’émergence des constructions clivées, pseudo-clivées et liées en français. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sabio, Frédéric, and Christophe Benzitoun
    2013 “Sur les relations entre syntaxe et discours: Dispositifs de la rection et dispositifs macrosyntaxiques.” Studia Universitas Babeş-Bolyai Philologia58 (4): 97–110 hal-00931611.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Secova, Maria
    2010 “Discourse-Pragmatic Features of Spoken French: Analysis and Pedagogical Implications.” PhD dissertation, School of Languages, Linguistics and Film, Queen Mary, University of London.
  97. Smits, Reinier Johannes Charles
    1989 Eurogrammar. The Relative and Cleft Constructions in the Germanic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Verwimp, Lyan, and Karen Lahousse
    2016 “Definite il y a-Clefts in Spoken French.” Journal of French Language Studies27 (3): 263–290. 10.1017/S0959269516000132
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269516000132 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00014.kar
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction
Keyword(s): cleft sentences; existential sentences; information structure; non-prototypical; presentational sentences; there cleft

Most Cited

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