A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions

Linguistics

Volumn 39, Issue 373, 2001, Pages 463-516

  Lambrecht, Knud ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038976501     PISSN: 00243949     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/ling.2001.021     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Abbott, Barbara (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics.
2. Bearth, Thomas (1999a). The inferential gap condition. Pragmatics 9(2), 249-280.
3. _(1999b). The contribution of African linguistics towards a general theory of focus. Update and critical review. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 126-156.
4. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire (1983). Examen de la notion de subordination. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 4, 71-115. Aix-en-Provence: Publications Université de Provence.
5. Bolinger, Dwight (1972). A look at equations and cleft sentences. In Studies for Einar Haugen Presented by his Friends and Colleagues, E. Scherabon Firchow et al. (eds.), 96-114. The Hague: Mouton.
6. Bonami, Olivier; Godard, Danielle; and Marandin, Jean-Marie (1999). Constituency and word order in French subject inversion. In Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, G. Bouma, E. Hinrichs, G.-J. Kruijff, and R. Oeherle (eds.). Stanford: CSLI.
7. Chomsky, Noam (1972). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, 62-119. The Hague: Mouton.
8. Clark, Eve (1970). Locationals: A Study of the Relations Between "Existential," "Locative" and "Possessive" Constructions. Working Papers in Language Universals. Stanford: Stanford University.
9. Collins, Peter C. (1991). Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London and New York: Routledge.
10. Comrie, Bernard (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Declerck, Renaat (1988). Studies in Copular Sentences, Clefts, and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Dordrecht: Foris.
12. _(1992). The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua 87, 203-230.
13. Delahunty, Gerald P. (1982). Topics in the syntax and semantics of English cleft sentences. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Irvine. (Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.)
14. _(1995). The inferential construction. Pragmatics 5(3), 341-364.
15. Delin, Judy (1999). The discourse function of reverse WH-clefts. Paper presented at the Workshop on "Discourse Function(s) of Cleft Sentences," Humboldt Universität Berlin, October.
16. _; and Oberlander, Jon (1995). Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: the case of it-clefts. Linguistics 33, 465-500.
17. Faraci, Robert (1971). On the deep question of pseudo-clefts. English Linguistics 6, 48-85.
18. Fillmore, Charles J.; Kay, Paul; Kathol, Andreas; and Michaelis, Laura (forthcoming). Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
19. Foley, William A.; and Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Gould, Steven Jay (1977). Organic wisdom, or why should a fly eat its mother from inside. In Ever Since Darwin. Reflections in Natural History. New York and London: Norton.
22. Gundel, Jeannette K. (1977). Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53(3), 543-559.
23. _(1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in Linguistic Typology, M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, and J. Wirth (eds.), 209-239. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
24. _; Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2), 274-306.
25. Haiman, John (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language 54(3), 564-589.
26. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199-244.
27. Hannay, Mike (1985). English Existentials in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
28. Hedberg, Nancy (1999). The discourse function of English clefts and Mandarin shi ... de constructions. Paper presented at the Workshop on "Discourse Function(s) of Cleft Sentences," Humboldt Universität Berlin, October.
29. Horn, Laurence, R. (1986). Presupposition, theme, and variations. Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 22: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 168-192. Chicago: CLS.
30. Huddleston, Rodney D. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Jackendoff, Ray (1997). Twistin' the night away. Language 73, 534-559.
32. Jacobs, Joachim (1984). Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91, 25-58.
33. Jespersen, Otto (1927). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part III, Syntax, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Winter.
34. _(1937). Analytic Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.
35. _(1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VII. Syntax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard; London: Allen and Unwin.
36. Katz, Stacey L. (1997). The syntactic and pragmatic properties of the c'est-cleft construction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
37. _(2000). A functional approach to the teaching of the French c'est-cleft. French Review 74(2), 248-262.
38. Kay, Paul; and Fillmore, Charles J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction. Language 15(1), 1-33.
39. Keenan, Edward (1985). Relative clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 2; Complex Constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 141-170. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Koenig, Jean-Pierre; and Lambrecht, Knud (1999). French relative clauses as secondary predicates: a case study in construction theory. In Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2. Selected Papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique de Paris (CSSP 1997), Francis Corblin, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin, and Jean Marie Marandin (eds.), 191-214. The Hague: Thesus.
41. Ladd, Robert D. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Lambrecht, Knud (1984). A pragmatic constraint on lexical subjects in spoken French. CLS 20, 239-256.
43. _(1988a). Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 135-179. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
44. _(1988b). There was a farmer had a dog: syntactic amalgams revisited. BLS 14, 319-339.
45. _(1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. _(1995). The pragmatics of case. On the relationship between semantic, pragmatic, and grammatical roles in English and French. In Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics, M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 145-190. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
47. _(1997). French relative clauses as secondary predicates. In Texas Linguistics Forum 38. The Syntax and Semantics of Predication. (Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference), 205-221. Austin: University of Texas as Austin.
48. _(2000). Prédication seconde et structure informationnelle. La relative de perception comme construction présentative. Langue Française.
49. _(2001). When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 24(3), 611-682.
50. _; and Michaelis, Laura A. (1998). Sentence accent in information questions: default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(5), 477-544.
51. _; and Polinsky, Maria (1998). Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions? In Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the Panels, Kora Singer et al. (eds.), 189-206. Chicago: CLS.
52. McCawley, James D. (1981). The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53, 99-149.
53. Oberlander, Jon; and Delin, Judy (1996). The function and interpretation of reverse wh-clefts in spoken discourse. Language and Speech 39, 185-227.
54. Prince, Ellen F. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54, 883-906.
55. _(1992). The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 295-326. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
56. _(1999). On the lack of clefts in Yiddish: a possible cause and some effects. Paper presented at the Workshop on "Discourse Function(s) of Cleft Sentences," Humboldt Universität Berlin, October.
57. Radford, Andrew (1975). Pseudo-relatives and the unity of subject-raising. Archivum Linguisticum 6, 32-64.
58. Rando, Emily; and Napoli, Donna Jo (1978). Definites in there-sentences. Language 54, 300-313.
59. Ross, John R. (1991). The syntax of emphasis. Unpublished manuscript, Linguistics department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil.
60. _(2000). The frozenness of pseudoclefts: towards an inequality-based syntax. In Proceedings of the 36th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: CLS.
61. Sandfeld, Kristian (1965 [1936]). Syntaxe du français contemporain, vol. 2: Les propositions subordonnées. Geneva: Droz.
62. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1987). The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25, 511-580.
63. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64. Smits, R. J. C. (1989). Eurogrammar. The Relative and Cleft Constructions of the Germanic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.
65. Strawson, P (1964). Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30, 96-118. (Reprinted [1971]. In Semantics, D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits [eds.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)
66. Strawson, P (1964). Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30, 96-118. (Reprinted [1971]. In Semantics, D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits [eds.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)
67. Vallduví, Enric (1988). Functional load, prosody, and syntax: left-detachment in Catalan and Spanish. In Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, L. MacLeod et al. (eds.), 391-403. Chicago: CLS.
68. Van Valin, Robert D. (1999). A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In Typology and Linguistic Theory: From Description to Explanation, E. Raxilina and J. Testelec (eds.), 511-524. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.
69. _; and LaPolla, Randy J. (1997). Syntax, Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1994). Dealing out meaning: fundamentals of syntactic constructions. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, S. Gahl et al. (eds.), 611-625. Berkeley: BLS.