In the general schema of the cleft-sentence
| [ | [ | △ | (Cop) | [ F ]C.i | ]S↴ | [ | ... [Pron/∅]C.i ... | ]↴S | ]S0 |
| expletive/zero subject | non-verbal predicate | empty place | |||||||
| focal component | [ | extrafocal clause | ] | ||||||
| [ | non-verbal clause | ] | [ | non-oriented open clause | ] | ||||
| [ | main clause | ] | [ | dependent clause | ] | ||||
the default order is for S↴ to precede ↴S, which conveys insistent focus. Since S↴ contains the focus of the complex sentence, the focal component then precedes the presupposed material. If the identificational construction involves a copula, this may precede or follow F depending on the language-specific syntax.
Languages may use a formative which stems from a copula or synchronically still is a copula as a focus marker. Given the variation in the order of S↴ and ↴S and in the order of the copula and its predicate complement, a mere copula used as focus marker does not allow for inferring either a cleft or a pseudo-cleft construction as its origin on the basis of purely synchronic evidence. Some languages for which the origin of such a focus marker in a cleft-construction is ascertainable on historical and/or comparative grounds include:
- Semitic: Goldenberg 1973; Hebrew: Khan 2019; Neo-Aramaic: Khan 2018
- Nakh-Daghestanian, Godoberi: Kazenin 1996
- Yukaghir: Maslova 1997, Nikolaeva 2020
- French-based creole, Martinican: Damoiseau 2012: 123f.
The following sections illustrate the grammaticalization of a cleft-sentence to a mono-clausal focus construction which includes grammaticalization of a copula to a focus marker, from two languages, Jula (Mande) and Mandarin (Chinese).
References
Damoiseau, Robert 2012, Syntaxe créole comparée : Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyane, Haïti. Paris: Karthala.
Goldenberg, Gideon 1973. ‘Imperfectly-transformed cleft sentences’. Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies) 1: 127–33. Online.
Kazenin, Konstantin 1996, ‘Focus constructions and WH-questions’. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. (ed.), Godoberi. München: LINCOM Europa; 227–236.
Khan, Geoffrey 2018. ‘Remarks on the syntax and historical development of the copula in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects’. Aramaic Studies 16: 234–269.
Khan, Geoffrey 2019. ‘Copulas, cleft sentences and focus markers in Biblical Hebrew’. Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell & John A. Messarra (eds.), Ancient texts and modern readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew linguistics and bible translation. Leiden & Boston: Brill; 14–62.
Maslova, Elena 1997, ‘Yukagir focus in a typological perspective’. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 457-475.
Nikolaeva, Irina 2020, Yukaghir morphology in a historical and comparative perspective. München: Lincom Europa.