1887
Volume 42, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

was used over 619.000 times in the two days that have followed the attack of and has regularly been taken up in both written and spoken forms since. A number of variants of this meme (i.e. ) have also emerged among French speakers. We argue that this is primarily related to the fact that the structure of actually clashes with its meaning. Whereas its word order and default rightmost sentence stress are compatible either with an all-focus reading or a narrow focusing of , the solidarity/empathy message it communicates suggests that its subject is narrowly focused. We propose that two strategies have emerged to solve this conflict: (i) various alternative forms have appeared that allow proper subject focusing and (ii) speakers have reinterpreted the original structure so as to pragmatically retrieve the (additive) focused nature of the subject.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17008.ham
2018-06-06
2019-08-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beyssade, Claire & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
    2005 A syntax-based analysis of predication. In Efthymia Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT), 44–61, Ithaca: Cornell University. doi: 10.3765/salt.v15i0.2936
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v15i0.2936 [Google Scholar]
  2. Büring, Daniel
    2006 Focus projection and default prominence. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus, 321–346. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110922011.321
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.321 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1985 Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry16(3). 417–443.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Côté, Marie-Hélène
    2001 On the status of subject clitics in Child French. In Margareta Almgren , Andoni Barrena , Maria-José Ezeizabarrena , Itziar Idiazabal & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), Research on Child Language Acquisition, 1314–1330. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Culbertson, J.
    2010 Convergent evidence for categorical change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker. Language86(1). 85–132.10.1353/lan.0.0183
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0183 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dawkins, R.
    1976The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Deng, J.
    2015 Language memes in Chinese blessing texted messages. Linguistica Atlantica34(2). 79–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Destruel, Emilie
    2013The French C’est-cleft: Empirical studies of its meaning and use. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Engdahl, Elisabet
    2006 Information packaging in questions. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol.6, 93–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Féry, Caroline
    2001 The Phonology of Focus in French. InAudiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 153–181. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hamlaoui, Fatima
    2007 French cleft sentences and the syntax-phonology interface. InProceedings of the 2007 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009La focalisation à l’interface de la syntaxe et de la phonologie: le cas du français dans une perspective typologique. Paris: Université Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamlaoui, Fatima & Laurent Roussarie
    2015 #Je suis Charlie. Semantic and prosodic anatomy of an empathic copular sentence. ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics (ZASPiL) 58. 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Horn, Laurence. R.
    1981 Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In Victoria Burke & James Pustejovsky (eds.), Papers from the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS, 124–142. Amherst, GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. vander Klok, Jozina , Heather Goad & Michael Wagner
    2014Prosodic Focus in English vs. French: A Scope Account. Ms. McGill University (LingBuzz).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. König, Ekkehard
    1991The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203212288
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203212288 [Google Scholar]
  17. Krifka, Manfred
    2001 For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Caroline Féry & Werner Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2006 Association with focus phrases. In Varléria Molnar & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110922011.105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.105 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kupferman, Lucien
    1979 Les constructions il est médecin / c’est un médecin: Essai de solution. Cahier de Linguistique9. 131–164.10.7202/800080ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/800080ar [Google Scholar]
  20. Ladd, Robert D.
    2007Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Matushansky, Ora
    2015 The Other Francis Bacon: On Non-BARE Proper Names. Erkenntnis80(2). 335–362.10.1007/s10670‑014‑9703‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9703-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Moeschler, Jacques
    2009 Pragmatics, propositional and non-propositional effects. Can a theory of utterance interpretation account for emotions in verbal communication?Social Science Information48(3). 447–463.10.1177/0539018409106200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409106200 [Google Scholar]
  23. Partee, Barbara
    1987 Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principle. In Jeroen Groenendijk , Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115–144. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pešková, Andrea
    2015Sujetos pronominales en el español porteño: Implicaciones pragmáticas en la interfaz sintáctico-fonológica (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 394). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110416398
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416398 [Google Scholar]
  25. Reinhart, Tanya
    1982Pragmatics and linguistics – an analysis of sentence topics. Tech. Rep., IULC, Bloomington.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1995 Interface strategies. InOTS Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 55–109. Utrecht: OTS, Utrecht University.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2006Interface strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rooth, Mats
    1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  29. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri
    2005 Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory23. 687–755.10.1007/s11049‑004‑2874‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-2874-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Selkirk, Elisabeth
    2011 The Syntax-Phonology interface. In John Goldsmith , Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 485–532. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781444343069.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1995 Sentence Prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1984Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Siemund, Peter
    2000Intensifiers in English and German: A Comparison. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203279540
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203279540 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sportiche, Dominique
    1988 A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry19(2). 425–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Stalnaker, Robert
    1974 Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Milton M. Kunitz & Peter Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. von Stechow, Arnim
    1982 Structured propositions. Tech. Rep., Konstanz SFB. www2.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/˜arnim10/.
  37. Szendrői, Kriszta
    2001Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College of London dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2003 A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review20. 37–78.10.1515/tlir.2003.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2003.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Truckenbrodt, Hubert
    1995Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Vallduví, Enric & Elisabet Engdahl
    1996 The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics34. 459–519.10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459 [Google Scholar]
  41. Zribi-Hertz, Anne
    1994 The syntax of nominative clitics in Standard and Advanced French. In Guglielmo Cinque , Jan Koster , Jean-Yves Pollock , Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, 453–472. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa
    1998Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17008.ham
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): copular sentences , empathic reading , focus , French and predicative proper names
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