Clefts and their Relatives

238 Pages·2012·1.128 MB·English

by  Matthew Reeve

Clefts and their Relatives
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA)
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph
studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical
and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics,
morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust
empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.
For an overview of all books published in this series, please see
http://benjamins.com/catalog/la
General Editors
Werner Abraham Elly van Gelderen
University of Vienna / Arizona State University
University of Munich
Advisory Editorial Board
Josef Bayer Christer Platzack
University of Konstanz University of Lund
Cedric Boeckx Ian Roberts
ICREA/UB Cambridge University
Guglielmo Cinque Lisa deMena Travis
University of Venice McGill University
Liliane Haegeman Sten Vikner
University of Ghent University of Aarhus
Hubert Haider C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
University of Salzburg University of Groningen
Terje Lohndal
Norwegian University of Science
and Technology
Volume 185
Clefts and their Relatives
by Matthew Reeve
Clefts and their Relatives
Matthew Reeve
University College London
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Clefts and their Relatives / Matthew Reeve.
p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 185)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Sentences. 2. Grammar, Comparative and
general--Clauses. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general--Syntax. 4. Semantics.
I. Title.
P295.R44 2012
415--dc23 2012003363
isbn 978 90 272 5568 6 (Hb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 7460 1 (Eb)
© 2012 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
To the Reeves and Woodhouses (and their relatives)

Table of contents
Acknowledgements xi
Abbreviations used in glosses xiii
chapter 1
Introduction 1
chapter 2
The syntax of English clefts 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Proposal 8
2.3 What specificational analyses get right: The non-expletive
nature of cleft it 10
2.3.1 Introduction 10
2.3.2 Syntactic evidence 10
2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives 10
2.3.2.2 Control 11
2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic 12
2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian 15
2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French 16
2.3.2.6 Summary 17
2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational
sentences 17
2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure 17
2.3.3.2 Presuppositions 19
2.3.3.3 Summary 24
2.4 What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour
of the cleft clause 24
2.4.1 Introduction 24
2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause 25
2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause 27
2.4.3.1 Introduction 27
2.4.3.2 Locality 28
2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts 35
iii Clefts and their Relatives
2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator 37
2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses 39
2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure 40
2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure 47
2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity 54
2.4.3.9 Summary 56
2.5 Conclusion 57
chapter 3
Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses 59
3.1 Introduction 59
3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses 61
3.2.1 Introduction 61
3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and ‘θ-binding’ 62
3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: Modification of a non-sister 65
3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: Two antecedents for one relative 70
3.2.5 Two licensing conditions 74
3.3 Consequences of the analysis 82
3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition 82
3.3.2 The uniqueness of θ-binding I: Restrictions on subjects 89
3.3.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding II: The ban on stacking 93
3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent 96
3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent 99
3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions 101
3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects 105
3.3.8 Summary 107
3.4 Θ-binding in it-extraposition sentences 107
3.4.1 Introduction 107
3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts 110
3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive 111
3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position 111
3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding revisited 114
3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts 115
3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent 115
3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic
antecedent 117
3.4.4 Summary 118
3.5 Conclusion 118
Table of contents ix
chapter 4
Clefts in Slavonic languages 119
4.1 Introduction 119
4.2 Proposal 124
4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting 129
4.3.1 No relative clause structure 130
4.3.2 Ellipsis of the ‘cleft clause’ 130
4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs 131
4.3.4 Connectivity effects 132
4.3.5 No predicational clefts 133
4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP 134
4.3.7 Summary 135
4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection 135
4.4.1 No copula or relative clause 135
4.4.2 The types of adverbs permitted after èto 138
4.4.3 Imperative clefts 139
4.4.4 Clitic-climbing 140
4.4.5 Summary 141
4.5 Consequences of the ‘double-subject’ structure 142
4.5.1 Introduction 142
4.5.2 Evidence for two IPs 142
4.5.2.1 Sentential vs. constituent negation 142
4.5.2.2 Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian 143
4.5.3 Evidence that èto is a DP specifier 146
4.5.3.1 Èto in ‘bare copular sentences’ 146
4.5.3.2 The positions of adverbs 148
4.5.3.3 Control complements 150
4.5.4 Summary 151
4.6 Russian clefts as specificational sentences 152
4.6.1 Introduction 152
4.6.2 Previous analyses 154
4.6.3 Applying the θ-binding analysis to Russian clefts 155
4.6.3.1 Problems for compositionality 155
4.6.3.2 Θ-binding of the ‘cleft clause’ 156
4.6.4 Consequences of the θ-binding analysis 157
4.6.4.1 The interpretative properties of Russian clefts 157
4.6.4.2 ‘Adjacency’ effects 161
4.6.4.3 Apparent cases of non-adjacency 163