Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:59:31.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definite il y a-clefts in spoken French*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2016

LYAN VERWIMP  and
KAREN LAHOUSSE
LYAN VERWIMP*
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
KAREN LAHOUSSE
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
*
Address for correspondence: KU Leuven – ESAT – PSI, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2441, Leuven 3001, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses il y a-clefts in spoken French. In the linguistic literature, only one function of il y a-clefts is widely acknowledged, namely presenting a new event in the discourse. By studying corpus examples in their wider context, we found however that many occurrences do not easily fit in the properties described in the literature. We make a distinction between presentational il y a-clefts, which can be event-presenting or entity-presenting, and specificational enumerative il y a-clefts, which give an example of a class that was implicitly or explicitly evoked in the context.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 263 - 290
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Gaétan de Saint Moulin for his grammaticality judgments.

References

REFERENCES

Ashby, W. J. (1995). French presentational structure. In: Amastae, J., Goodall, G., Montalbetti, M. and Phinney, M. (eds), Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–104.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Deulofeu, J., Stéfanini, J. and van den Eynde, K. (1984). Pronom et Syntaxe. L'Approche pronominale et son application au français. Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. and Jeanjean, C. (1987). Le français parlé. Transcription et édition. Paris: Didier Érudition.Google Scholar
Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury, S., Lefeuvre, F. and Pires, M. (2012). Discours sur la ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP2000). Online available: http://cfpp2000.univ-paris3.fr/CFPP2000.pdf.Google Scholar
Choi-Jonin, I. and Lagae, V. (2005). Il y a des gens ils ont mauvais caractère. À propos du rôle de il y a. In: Murguía, A. (ed), Sens et Références. Mélanges Georges Kleiber. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 39–66.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. (1999a). Are there sentences that can be analyzed as there-clefts? In: Tops, G., Devriendt, B. and Geukens, S. (eds), Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus. Leuven/Paris: Peeters, pp. 179–195.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. (1999b). The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 10.3: 203–250.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. (2000). A constructional approach to clefts. Linguistics, 38: 1101–1131.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. (2013). Existential clauses and clefts in English. Grammatical description and theory. (Conference in Copenhague)Google Scholar
Davidse, K. and Lahousse, K. (2014). Specificational existential clefts in French and English. Dynamicity Round Table. Cardiff, UK.Google Scholar
De Cesare, A.-M. (2014). Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic: Contrastive, Corpus-based Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Giry-Schneider, J. (1988). L'interprétation événementielle des phrases en il y a. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 12: 85–100.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Part III, Syntax, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kaneko, M. (2002). Syntaxe et sémantique du jugement thétique: étude contrastive de la construction GA du japonais et de la construction Pseudo-Relative du français. MA dissertation.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, L. and Lahousse, K. (2014). C'est-clefts versus il y a-clefts in French. Going Romance. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, L. and Lahousse, K. (2015a). Two types of clefts in French: information structure, existential presupposition and syntax. Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Perugia, Italy.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, L. and Lahousse, K. (2015b). French il y a & c'est clefts: a corpus-based analysis of their Information Structure. SLE. Leiden, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Katz, S. (2000). A functional approach to the teaching of the French c'est-cleft. The French Review, 74.2: 248–262.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1981). Relatives spécifiantes et relatives non spécifiantes. Le Français Moderne, 49: 216–233.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (2012). The information structure of French. In: Krifka, M. and Musan, R. (eds), The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9.2: 153–185.Google Scholar
Lahousse, K. (2010). Information structure and epistemic modality in adverbial clauses in French. Studies in Language, 34: 298–326.Google Scholar
Lahousse, K. and Borremans, M. (2014). The distribution of functional-pragmatic types of clefts in adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 52.3: 793–836.Google Scholar
Lahousse, K. and Lamiroy, B. (2015). C'est ainsi que: grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation ou les deux à la fois? Journal of French Language Studies (in press).Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1988). Presentational cleft construction in spoken French. In: Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A. (eds), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 135–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39: 463–561.Google Scholar
Léard, J.-M. (1986). Il y a. . . qui et c'est. . . qui: la syntaxe comme comptabilité d'opérations sémantiques. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 10: 85–130.Google Scholar
Meulleman, M. (2012). Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles: Approche comparée en espagnol, en français et en italien. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In: Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–256.Google Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C. and Rioul, R. (2009). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Rouget, C. and Salze, L. (1985). C'est. . . qui, c'est. . . que : le jeu des quatre familles. Recherches sur le français parlé, 7: 117–141.Google Scholar
Sabio, F. and Benzitoun, C. (2013). Sur les relations entre syntaxe et discours: dispositifs de la rection et dispositifs macrosyntaxiques. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Philologia, 58.4: 97–110.Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. (1987). The thetic/categorial distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25: 511–580.Google Scholar
Scappini, S.-A. (2006). Etude du dispositif d'extraction en “c'est qu-”, différenciation entre extraction et relative. PhD thesis, Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
Scappini, S-A. (2013). Un sous-type de la construction clivée en “c'est. . .qu”: la structure d'enchaînement “et c'est pour ça que. . . et autres exemples”. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Philologia, 4: 81–95.Google Scholar
Secova, M. (2010). Discourse-pragmatic features of spoken French: analysis and pedagogical implications. PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar
Willems, D. and Meulleman, M. (2010). Il y a des gens ils viennent acheter des aspirines pour faire de l'eau gazeuse. Sur les raisons d’être des structures parataxiques en il y a . In: Béguelin, M.-J., Avanzi, M. and Corminboeuf, G. (eds), La Parataxe. Tome 2: Structures, marquages et exploitations discursives. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 167–184.Google Scholar