Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:15:52.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categories of C’est-Cleft Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Stacey Katz
Stacey Katz*
Affiliation:
Montclair State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, a system of categorizing the c’esf-cleft into different types is developed, based on their pragmatic, syntactic and prosodic properties. This goal has already been accomplished in English linguistic studies for a similar construction, the it-cleft. The c’est-cleft, however, is found more frequently than the it-cleft, and in many contexts, it is obligatory. In general, in the relative clause of the c’est-cleft, there is an open proposition that is saturated through replacing the missing variable by the element that is found in post-copular position. In most cases, the material found in the relative clause is presupposed; however, there are some cleft types for which this is not necessarily the case. This study is based on Lambrecht’s study of Information Structure.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article est développé un système de catégorisation des phrases clivées en c’est à partir de leurs propriétés pragmatiques, syntaxiques et prosodiques suivant le modèle de travaux effectués sur la construction analogue en anglais, la clivée en it is. Les phrases clivées en c’est sont plus fréquemment utilisées que les clivées en it is, et il y a des contextes discursifs en français où le recours à la construction clivée est quasi obligatoire. En général, dans la proposition relative des clivées en c’est on trouve une proposition ouverte qui se trouve saturée en remplaçant la variable par l’élément qui est le complément du verbe être. Dans la plupart des clivées en c’est, ce qu’on trouve dans la proposition relative est présupposé, mais ce n’est pas toujours le cas. Cette étude est fondée sur la théorie de la Structure de l’Information de Lambrecht.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 45 , Issue 3-4 , December 2000 , pp. 253 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2000

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.)

References

Authier, Marc, and Reed, Lisa. 1998. On some syntactic conditions on presuppositions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Western Conference on Linguistics, ed. van Gelderen, Elly and Samiaan, Vida, 27–40. Department of Linguistics, California State Univeristy, Fresno.Google Scholar
Authier, Marc, and Reed, Lisa. 1999. Structure and interpretation in natural language. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and topic, ed. Li, Charles N., 25–26. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. Tomiin, Russell, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Studies on semantics in generative grammar, ed. Chomsky, Noam, 62–119. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1991. Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Leuven-Louvain: Foris.Google Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P. 1982. Topics in the syntax and semantics of English cleft sentences. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. In Proceedings from the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14, ed. Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen, 35–55. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, Kathol, Andreas, and Michaelis, Laura. To appear. Construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1989. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53:543–559.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, M. Peter, and Carduner, Sylvie. 1982. D’accord. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3:199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heggie, Lorie. 1993. The range of null operators: Evidence from clefting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11:45–84.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61:121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, and Peters, Stanley. 1979. Conventional Implicature. In Syntax and Semantics 11, ed. Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Stacey. 1997. The syntactic and pragmatic properties of the c’est-cleft construction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Katz, Stacey. 2000. A functional approach to the teaching of the French c’est-cleft. French Review 74:248–262.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74:245–273.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. To appear. A framework for the analysis ofcleft constructions. Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud, and Michealis, Laura. 1996. Towards a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72:883–906.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Semantics from different points of view, ed. Bauerle, R., Egli, Urs, and von Stechow, Amin, 172–187. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Moreau, Marie-Louise. 1976. C’est. Mons: Éditions Universitaires de Mons.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54:883–906.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1988. It-clefts and wh-clefts: Two awkward sentence types. Journal of Linguistics 24:343–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1992. The sounds of French. Bath: Bath Press.Google Scholar