Clefts and their Relatives
Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restri...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Libro electrónico |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Amsterdam/Philadelphia :
John Benjamins Pub. Co
2012.
|
| Colección: | EBSCO Academic eBook Collection Complete.
Linguistics today ; v. 185. |
| Acceso en línea: | Conectar con la versión electrónica |
| Ver en Universidad de Navarra: | https://innopac.unav.es/record=b31000381*spi |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Clefts and their Relatives; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations used in glosses; Introduction; The syntax of English clefts; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. Proposal; 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it; 2.3.1 Introduction; 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence; 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives.; 2.3.2.2 Control; 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic; 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian; 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French.; 2.3.2.6 Summary.
- 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure; 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions; 2.3.3.3 Summary; 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause; 2.4.1 Introduction; 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause; 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause; 2.4.3.1 Introduction; 2.4.3.2 Locality; 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts; 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator; 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses; 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure.
- 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity; 2.4.3.9 Summary; 2.5. Conclusion; Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and '?-binding'; 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister; 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative; 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions; 3.3 Consequences of the analysis; 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition.
- 3.3.2 The uniqueness of?-binding I: restrictions on subjects3.3.3 The uniqueness of?-binding II: the ban on stacking; 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent; 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions; 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects; 3.3.8 Summary; 3.4 T-binding in it-extraposition sentences; 3.4.1 Introduction; 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts; 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive; 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position; 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of?-binding revisited.
- 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent; 3.4.4 Summary; 3.5 Conclusion; Clefts in Slavonic languages; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting; 4.3.1 No relative clause structure; 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause'; 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs; 4.3.4 Connectivity effects; 4.3.5 No predicational clefts; 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP; 4.3.7 Summary; 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection.
