Clefts and their Relatives.

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.

4.4.1 No copula or relative clause.

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 restrictive relative clause) must be reformulated such that they account for the apparent compositionality of DP-internal modification whilst also permitting 'discontinuous' modification of the type which is independently needed for constructions such as relative clause extraposition. The empirical focus.

Print version record.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide