Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Keywords
- Freezing principle (2)
- Icelandic (2)
- Kopulasatz (2)
- Satzakzent (2)
- Spaltsatz (2)
- Syntaktische Analyse (2)
- agreement (2)
- copula (2)
- it-clefts (2)
- plurale tantum (2)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (2)
Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- Benjamins (1)
This paper discusses the interaction of Freezing with movement and focus on the basis of subextraction from the pivot of it-cleft sentences. It shows that subextraction is in principle possible, and that it is not sensitive to whether the pivot is related to a derived subject or real object. However, if the context induces an additional contrastive focus on the pivot, extraction is less acceptable. It is suggested that the problem is that two different sets of alternatives need to be construed on the basis of one and the same syntactically marked focus phrase, the pivot. Once the two sets of alternatives are syntactically separated, interpretation is less complex and licit.
This paper discusses a specific subclass of English it-clefts posited in the theoretical literature, so-called predicational clefts. The main point of the paper is to show that there is no need to postulate such a separate class. Predicational clefts look special because of the narrow focus on the adjective within an indefinite pivot, but their special properties can all be derived from this narrow focus in a focus analysis in which it-clefts express contrasting focus. Contrasting focus means that besides the assertion of the proposition expressed in the cleft, there is one contrasting proposition which is excluded. The focus on the adjective in apparent predicational clefts gives rise to a narrow set of relevant alternatives, all of which differ only in the adjectival property within the pivot. The analysis developed here can account for many of the observations for apparent predicational clefts. Other properties are shown to be not conclusive. Thus, predicational clefts need not be considered a special subclass beyond their special focus characteristics.
In a number of languages, agreement in specificational copular sentences can or must be with the second of the two nominals, even when it is the first that occupies the canonical subject position. Béjar & Kahnemuyipour (2017) show that Persian and Eastern Armenian are two such languages. They then argue that ‘NP2 agreement’ occurs because the nominal in subject position (NP1) is not accessible to an external probe. It follows that actual agreement with NP1 should never be possible: the alternative to NP2 agreement should be ‘default’ agreement. We show that this prediction is false. In addition to showing that English has NP1, not default, agreement, we present new data from Icelandic, a language with rich agreement morphology, including cases that involve ‘plurale tantum’ nominals as NP1. These allow us to control for any confound from the fact that typically in a specificational sentence with two nominals differing in number, it is NP2 that is plural. We show that even in this case, the alternative to agreement with NP2 is agreement with NP1, not a default. Hence, we conclude that whatever the correct analysis of specificational sentences turns out to be, it must not predict obligatory failure of NP1 agreement.