Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper discusses a specific subclass of English -clefts posited in the theoretical literature, so-called predicational clefts. The main point of the paper is to show that there is no need to postulate such a separate class. Predicational clefts look special because of the narrow focus on the adjective within an indefinite pivot, but their special properties can all be derived from this narrow focus in a focus analysis in which -clefts express contrasting focus. Contrasting focus means that besides the assertion of the proposition expressed in the cleft, there is one contrasting proposition which is excluded. The focus on the adjective in apparent predicational clefts gives rise to a narrow set of relevant alternatives, all of which differ only in the adjectival property within the pivot. The analysis developed here can account for many of the observations for apparent predicational clefts. Other properties are shown to be not conclusive. Thus, predicational clefts need not be considered a special subclass beyond their special focus characteristics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akmajian, Adrian
    1979Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ball, Catherine
    1977 “Th-Clefts.” Pennsylvania Review of Linguistics2: 57–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, David
    2012 “IT-constructions.” GLOW talk, Potsdam University.
  4. Beck, Sigrid
    2006 “Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics14: 1–56. doi:  10.1007/s11050‑005‑4532‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y [Google Scholar]
  5. Belletti, Adriana
    2008 “Answering strategies: new information subjects and the nature of clefts.” InStructure and Strategies, ed. byAdriana Belletti, 242–265. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BNC
    BNC 2001 “British National Corpus, version 2 (world edition).” Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
  7. Büring, Daniel
    2012 “What’s Given (and What’s New) in the Theory of Focus?.” InProceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 8–10,2008, ed. bySarah Berson, 403–424. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Ling. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Büring, Daniel and Manuel Križ
    2013 “It’s That, and That’s It! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites).” Semantics & Pragmatics6: 1–29. doi:  10.3765/sp.6.6
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, Noam
    1977 “On Wh-Movement.” InFormal Syntax, ed. byPeter Culicover, Thomas A. Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cruschina, Silvio
    2012 “Focus in Existential Sentences.” InEnjoy linguistics!, ed. byValentina Bianchi and C. Chesi. Siena: CISCL Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Davidse, Kristin
    2000 “A Constructional Approach to Clefts.” Linguistics38(6): 1101–1131. doi:  10.1515/ling.2000.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2000.022 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2014 “On Specificational There-clefts.” Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics2: 1–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De Cesare, Anna-Maria
    2007 “Sul cosidetto, ‘c’è presentativo’: Forme e funzioni.” InLessico, grammatica e testualità, tra itlaiano scritto e parlato, ed. byAnna-Maria De Cesare and A. Ferrari, 127–153. Basilea: University of Basilea.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Declerck, Renaat
    1983 “Predicational Clefts.” Lingua61: 9–45. doi:  10.1016/0024‑3841(83)90023‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(83)90023-2 [Google Scholar]
  15. 1988Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: Foris. doi:  10.1515/9783110869330
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  16. Delahunty, Gerald P.
    1984 “The Analysis of English Cleft Sentences.” Linguistic Analysis13(1): 63–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Delin, Judy
    1992 “Aspects of Cleft Constructions in Discourse.” Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 34019: 1–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Delin, Judy and Jon Oberlander
    1995 “Syntactic Constraints on Discourse Structure: The Case of It-clefts.” Linguistics33: 465–500. doi:  10.1515/ling.1995.33.3.465
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.3.465 [Google Scholar]
  19. Den Dikken, Marcel
    2006aRelators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2006b “Specificational Copular Sentences and Pseudoclefts.” InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, VolumeIV, 292–409. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470996591.ch61
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch61 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2013 “Predication and Specification in the Syntax of Cleft Sentences.” InCleft Structures, ed. byKatharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra, 3570. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/la.208.02dik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.02dik [Google Scholar]
  22. 2014 “The attractions of agreement.” Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Destruel, Emilie, Daniel Velleman, Edgar Onea, Dylan Bumford, and Jingyang Xue
    2015 “A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Non-At-Issueness of Exhaustive Inferences.” InExperimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, ed. byFlorian Schwarz, 135–156. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    2004The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511616983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616983 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 “Notions and Subnotions in Information Structure.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica55(3): 381–395. doi:  10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.11
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.11 [Google Scholar]
  26. Halvorsen, Per-Kristian
    1978The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions. Austin, Texas: University of Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hartmann, Jutta M.
    2008Expletives in Existentials: English there and German da. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013 “Freezing in It-clefts.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique53(3): 487–496. doi:  10.1017/S000841310000267X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S000841310000267X [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016The Syntax and Focus Structure of Specificational Copular Clauses and Clefts. Habilitationsschrift.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. in prep. “Exhaustivity and Focus Alternatives in Clefts: Experimental Evidence.” Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hedberg, Nancy
    1990 Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English. Ph. D. thesis, University of Minnesota, Minnesota.
  32. Heggie, Lorie
    1988 The Syntax of Copular Constructions. Ph. D. thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
  33. Heycock, Caroline
    1992 “Layers of Predication and the Syntax of the Copula.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics7: 95–123. doi:  10.1075/bjl.7.07hey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.7.07hey [Google Scholar]
  34. 1994 “The Internal Structure of Small Clauses.” InProceedings of NELS 25, ed. byJill Beckmann, 223–238. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2012 “Specification, Equation, and Agreement in Copular Sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/ Revue canadienne de linguistique57(2): 209–240. doi:  10.1017/S0008413100004758
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100004758 [Google Scholar]
  36. Higgins, Roger
    1979The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Horn, Laurence R.
    1981 “Exhaustiveness and the Semantics of Clefts.” InPapers from the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS, ed. byVictoria Burke and Pustejovsky James, 124–142. Amherst: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Huber, Stefan
    2002 Es-Clefts und det-Clefts: Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Ph. D. thesis, Lund University, Lund.
  39. Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson
    2002 “Relative Constructions and Unbounded dependencies.” InThe Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. byRodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Laurie Bauer, 1031–1096. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/9781316423530.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.013 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jespersen, Otto
    1927A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Band 3: Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Karssenberg, Lena
    2017 “French il y a Clefts, Existential Sentences and the Focus-Marking Hypothesis.” Journal of French Language Studies3(27): 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Karssenberg, Lena and Karen Lahousse
    2018 “The Information Structure of French il y a Clefts & C’est Clefts: A Corpus-Based Analysis.” Linguistics56(3): 513–548.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Katz, Jonah and Elisabeth Selkirk
    2011 “Contrastive Focus vs. Discourse-New: Evidence From Phonetic Prominence in English.” Language87(4): 771–816. doi:  10.1353/lan.2011.0076
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0076 [Google Scholar]
  44. Katzir, Roni
    2013 “A Note on Contrast.” Natural Language Semantics21(4): 333–343. doi:  10.1007/s11050‑013‑9095‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kenesei, István
    2006 “Focus as Identification.” InThe Architecture of Topic and Focus, ed. byValeria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110922011.137
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.137 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kiss, Katalin É.
    1998 “Identificational Focus versus Information Focus.” Language74: 245–273. doi:  10.1353/lan.1998.0211
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kratzer, Angelika and Elisabeth Selkirk
    2010 “Distinguishing Contrastive, New and Given Information.” Talk given at theInternational Conference on Information Structure, sponsored by SFB 632 Informationsstruktur, Potsdam, July 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Krifka, Manfred
    2008 “Basic Notions of Information Structure.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica55: 243–276. doi:  10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015 “Projecting the Common Ground with Questions: Biases, Tags, and Alternatives.” Talk given at theDivision of Labor Conference, Tübingen University.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kruisinga, Etsko
    1932A Handbook of Present-day English: Part II: English accidence and syntax. Vol.3. Groningen: Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ladd, Dwight Robert
    1996Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lang, Ewald
    1991 “Koordinierende Konjunktionen.” InSemantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. byArnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 597–623. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mikkelsen, Line
    2005Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/la.85
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.85 [Google Scholar]
  54. Molnár, Valéria
    2006 “On Different Kinds of Contrast.” InThe Architecture of Focus, ed. byValeria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 197–233. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110922011.197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.197 [Google Scholar]
  55. Morgan, Jerry
    1975 “Some remarks on the nature of sentences.” InPapers from the parasession on functionalism, ed. byRobin E. Grossman, L. James San and Timothy J. Vance. Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Moro, Andrea
    1991 “The Raising of Predicates: Copula, Expletives, and Existence.” InMore Papers on Wh-movement, ed. byLisa Cheng and Hamid Demirdache, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 119–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 1997The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511519956
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519956 [Google Scholar]
  58. Patten, Amanda
    2010 Cleft sentences, Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization. Ph. D. thesis, Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh.
  59. Percus, Oren
    1997 “Prying Open the Cleft.” NELS27: 337–351.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Poutsma, Hendrik
    1916A Grammar of Late Modern English: Part II: Parts of Speech, Section IB. Pronouns and Numerals. Groningen: Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Repp, Sophie
    2010 “Defining ‘Contrast’ as an Information-Structural Notion in Grammar.” Lingua120: 1333–1345. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2016 “Contrast: Dissectiong an Elusive Infomation-Structural Notion and Its Role in the Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, ed. byCaroline Féry and Shin Ishihara, 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Rochemont, Michael S.
    2013 “Discourse New, F-Marking, and Normal Stress.” Lingua [SI: Information Structure Triggers]136: 38–62. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.016 [Google Scholar]
  64. Romero, Maribel
    2005 “Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects.” Linguistics and Philosophy28(6): 687–737. doi:  10.1007/s10988‑005‑2654‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9 [Google Scholar]
  65. Selkirk, Elisabeth
    2002 “Contrastive FOCUS vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic Evidence from Right Node Raising in English.” InSpeech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Prosody Conference, ed. byBernard Bel and Isabelle Marlin, 643–646. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Spathas, Giorgos
    2010Focus on Anaphora. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Van der Wal, Jenneke
    2011 “Focus excluding alternatives: Conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa.” Lingua121(11): 1734–1750. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.013 [Google Scholar]
  68. Velleman, Dan Bridges, David Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea, and Liz Coppock
    2013 “It-clefts are IT (Inquiry Terminating) Contractions.” Proceedings of SALT VIII22: 441–460.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Wagner, Michael
    2005 Prosody and Recursion. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, M.A.
  70. 2012 “Focus and Givenness: A Unified Approach.” InContrasts and Positions in Information Structure, ed. byIvona Kučerová and Ad Neeleman, 102–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511740084.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511740084.007 [Google Scholar]
  71. Washburn, Mary Byram
    2013 Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph. D. thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
  72. Washburn, Mary Byram, Elsi Kaiser, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
    2013 “The English It-Cleft: No Need to Get Exhausted.” Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Wedgwood, Daniel
    2005Shifting the Focus: From Static Structures to the Dynamics of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Zimmermann, Malte and Edgar Onea
    2011 “Focus marking and focus interpretation.” Lingua121(11): 1651–1670. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contrast; English; focus; focus alternatives; it-clefts; specificational copular clauses
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