Remarks on the grammaticalization of identificational clefts
In: Faits de LanguesSearch for other papers by Denis Creissels in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Identificational clefts dissociate the assertion of the exclusive identification of a participant in an event from the rest of the information about the event. In all languages, this can be achieved by combining equative predication and participant nominalization, but in the evolution of languages, the routinization of such a construction as the usual way of expressing participant focalization may result in its grammaticalization as a specific type of construction. After proposing to reformulate the usual distinction between ‘pseudo-clefts’ and ‘clefts’ as a distinction between ‘plain clefts’ and ‘grammaticalized clefts’, this article discusses successively the relationship between cleft constructions and the notion of subordination, the changes that may convert plain clefts into grammaticalized clefts, the emergence of focus markers from cleft constructions, semantic aspects of the evolution of clefts, and the trend towards monoclausality in the evolution of clefts.
Résumé
Les constructions clivées identificatives dissocient l’assertion de l’identification exclusive d’un participant à un événement du reste de l’information sur l’événement en question. Dans toutes les langues, ceci peut se réaliser en combinant prédication équative et nominalisation de participant, mais dans l’évolution des langues, la routinisation d’une telle construction comme la façon usuelle d’exprimer la focalisation d’un participant peut avoir comme résultat sa grammaticalisation comme un type spécifique de construction. Après avoir proposé de reformuler la distinction usuelle entre ‘pseudo-clivées’ et ‘clivées’ comme une distinction entre ‘clivées simples’ et ‘clivées grammaticalisées’, cet article discute successivement la relation entre constructions clivées et subordination, les changements qui peuvent convertir des clivées simples en clivées grammaticalisées, la création de marqueurs de focus à partir de constructions clivées, les aspects sémantiques de la grammaticalisation des constructions clivées, et la tendance à la monoclausalité dans l’évolution des constructions clivées.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Akmajian A., 1970, On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences, Linguistic Inquiry 1, p. 149–168.
-
Ball C.N. 1991. The historical development of the it-cleft. University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
-
Bohnemeyer J., Enfield N. J., Essegbey J., Ibarretxe-Antuñano I., Kita S., Lüpke F. & Ameka F. K., 2007, Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events, Language 83(3), p. 495–532.
-
Clech-Darbon A., Rialland A. & Rebuschi G., 1999, Are there cleft sentences in French?, in L. Tuller & G. Rebuschi (eds.), The grammar of focus, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 83–118.
-
Comrie B., 1995, Serial verbs in Haruai (Papua New Guinea) and their theoretical implications, in J. Bouscaren, J.-J. Franckel & S. Robert (eds.), Langues et langage: Problèmes et raisonnement en linguistique : Mélanges offerts à Antoine Culioli, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, p. 25–37.
-
Creissels D. & Sambou P., 2013, Le mandinka: Phonologie, grammaire, textes, Paris, Karthala.
-
Diouf J.-L., 2003, Dictionnaire wolof-français et français-wolof, Paris, Karthala.
-
Dufter A., 2008, On explaining the rise of C’est-clefts in French, in U. Detges & R. Waltereit (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change: Perspectives from Romance, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 31–56.
-
Givón T., 1979, On Understanding Grammar, New York, Academic Press.
-
Güldemann T., 2010, The relation between focus and theticity in the Tuu family, in I. Fiedler & A. Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 69–93.
-
Gundel J. K., 1977, Where do cleft sentences come from?, Language 53, p. 543–549.
-
Haegemann L., Meinunger A. & Vercauteren A., 2014, The architecture of it-clefts, Journal of Linguistics 50(2), p. 269–296.
-
Harris A. C. & Campbell L., 1995, Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
-
Haspelmath M., 2016, The serial verb construction: Comparative concepts and cross-linguistic generalizations, Language and Linguistics 17(3), p. 291–319.
-
Heine B., & Reh M., 1984, Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages, Hamburg, Helmut Buske.
-
Kato M. A. & Mioto C., 2016, Pseudo-clefts and semi-clefts, in M. A. Kato & F. Ordóñez (eds.), The Morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 286–306.
-
Newman P., 2000, The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar, Yale, Yale University Press.
-
Oumarou Yaro B., 1993, Eléments de description du zarma, PhD dissertation. University of Grenoble.
-
Patten A. L., 2012, The English it-cleft: A constructional approach and a diachronic investigation, Berlin and Boston, Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Robert S., 2010, Focus in Atlantic languages, in I. Fiedler & A. Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 233–260.
-
Sasse H.-J., 1985, The thetic/categorical distinction revisited, Linguistics 25(3), p. 511–580.
-
Van der Wal J. & Maniacky J., 2015, How “person” got into focus, Linguistics 53(1), p. 1–52.
-
Zentz J., 2016, The biclausal status of Shona clefts, 90th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.
-
Zubizarreta M. L., 2014, On the grammaticalization of the assertion structure: A view from Spanish, in A. Dufter & Á. S. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, Left sentence periphery in Spanish: diachronic, variationist and comparative perspectives, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 253–282.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 342 | 117 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 28 | 8 | 4 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 64 | 21 | 9 |
Remarks on the grammaticalization of identificational clefts
In: Faits de LanguesSearch for other papers by Denis Creissels in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Identificational clefts dissociate the assertion of the exclusive identification of a participant in an event from the rest of the information about the event. In all languages, this can be achieved by combining equative predication and participant nominalization, but in the evolution of languages, the routinization of such a construction as the usual way of expressing participant focalization may result in its grammaticalization as a specific type of construction. After proposing to reformulate the usual distinction between ‘pseudo-clefts’ and ‘clefts’ as a distinction between ‘plain clefts’ and ‘grammaticalized clefts’, this article discusses successively the relationship between cleft constructions and the notion of subordination, the changes that may convert plain clefts into grammaticalized clefts, the emergence of focus markers from cleft constructions, semantic aspects of the evolution of clefts, and the trend towards monoclausality in the evolution of clefts.
Résumé
Les constructions clivées identificatives dissocient l’assertion de l’identification exclusive d’un participant à un événement du reste de l’information sur l’événement en question. Dans toutes les langues, ceci peut se réaliser en combinant prédication équative et nominalisation de participant, mais dans l’évolution des langues, la routinisation d’une telle construction comme la façon usuelle d’exprimer la focalisation d’un participant peut avoir comme résultat sa grammaticalisation comme un type spécifique de construction. Après avoir proposé de reformuler la distinction usuelle entre ‘pseudo-clivées’ et ‘clivées’ comme une distinction entre ‘clivées simples’ et ‘clivées grammaticalisées’, cet article discute successivement la relation entre constructions clivées et subordination, les changements qui peuvent convertir des clivées simples en clivées grammaticalisées, la création de marqueurs de focus à partir de constructions clivées, les aspects sémantiques de la grammaticalisation des constructions clivées, et la tendance à la monoclausalité dans l’évolution des constructions clivées.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 342 | 117 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 28 | 8 | 4 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 64 | 21 | 9 |
