Basics of clefting

The clause component F is of some syntactic category C which co-determines the syntactic construction and will be taken up below.

The communicative function of clefting is major emphasis and typically contrastive focus on F. It differs structurally from mere contrastive stress on F within S by the explicit syntactic coding of a subordinative complex of two clauses. Sentence-clefting is, in fact, the most explicit syntactic strategy of contrastive focus.

Cleft constructions may be subdivided by two parameters which generate the following cross-classification:

Since clefting extracts F from S, ↴S is an open clause. As such, it may be oriented or non-oriented.

• If ↴S is oriented towards the position left open by F, it takes the form of a free relative clause. This construction, traditionally called pseudo-cleft sentence, is illustrated by , where Portuguese uses a relative pronoun.
• If ↴S is not oriented, it typically takes the form of a complement clause, except that it lacks the syntagma vacated by the extraction of F. The construction, traditionally called cleft-sentence, is illustrated by . (The Portuguese subordinator is homonymous with the default relative pronoun.)

The first column of the table shows insistent focus, with the focus clause preceding the extrafocal clause. The second column comprises suspensive focus, with the focus clause following the extrafocal clause. This contrast is illustrated for pseudo-cleft sentences by a vs. b. In the examples, the subordinate clause is bracketed.

The same contrast in the order of the two constitutive clauses is illustrated for cleft-sentences by a vs. b.

Cleft-sentence

A cleft-sentence is a complex sentence of the structure of S₀ in the following diagram. It shows the order of insistent focus, which is the default order for a cleft-sentence. The phoric relation between F and the empty place that it leaves in ^↴S is symbolized by the index i.

is an English variant on a.

Several details of this construction schema depend on the grammar of the language in question:

• The subject of S↴ is semantically empty. English requires an expletive subject in such clauses; Portuguese and Yucatec Maya do not.
• English, Portuguese and Mandarin require a copula with non-verbal predicates; Russian and Arabic and Yucatec Maya don't.
• If the construction comprises a copula, this may precede the non-verbal predicate, as in English, Portuguese and Mandarin, or may follow it, as in Latin.
• The extrafocal clause ↴S of and is subordinated by the universal subordinator (que in Portuguese, that in English). There is no subordinator for ↴S in Mandarin, Cabecar and Yucatec Maya.

If all such formatives are missing, the main clause of a cleft sentence reduces to the focused constituent. This is the case, e.g., in Yucatec Maya ().

If all the segmental material used for cleaving a sentence is zero, as it is in , the cleft-sentence may differ from a simple sentence only by the positioning of F: it is by definition at the margin of ↴S.

While the extrafocal clause of a cleft-sentence generally has the same internal structure as an open complement clause, its syntactic function in the main clause is less clear. It behaves in some respects as the subject of S↴, but actually has no syntactic function in S↴. Much less can it be analyzed as a relative clause whose head would be F. For instance, the F of is not a possible head of any relative construction. If the focus constituent is a nominal expression, as in , it is commonly – though not necessarily – a (semantically) definite NP. This could only take a non-restrictive relative clause. However, there is no intonation break and no pause at the clause boundary of S↴ and ↴S; so this cannot be a non-restrictive relative clause construction.

The focus constituent of a cleft-sentence can have more different syntactic functions in ↴S than the relativized position in a relative clause. Among other things, the focus may be an adverbial (as in ) or a predicate nominal. It is rather difficult to orient a clause towards an adjunct and impossible to orient it towards the predicate. As a consequence, extrafocal clauses of cleft-sentences, although open, are not oriented in principle.

Cleft-sentences are part of a semasiological grammar of complex sentence constructions. From an onomasiological point of view, they belong in the functional domain of information structure rather than in the domain of junction.

Pseudo-cleft sentence

The general structure of the pseudo-cleft sentence is shown in the following diagram. It shows the order of suspensive focus, which is the default order for a pseudo-cleft sentence.

is an example.

has two sentence-initial constituents which are left-dislocated topics, marked by the enclitic =e'. The second of these is a free relative clause. The focal constituent is announced in the relative clause by a relative pronoun of interrogative origin, which has direct object function.

The definitional properties of the pseudo-cleft sentence are:

1. As in any cleft-construction,
• the main clause S↴ has a non-verbal predicate (i.e. it is a nominal or copula clause)
• the predicate is the focal constituent.
2. The extrafocal portion ↴S is a free relative clause.
3. The extrafocal portion ↴S is the subject of the sentence.
4. The empty position in the relative clause is coreferential with the predicate of the main clause. Consequently, the main predication states identity of the subject ↴S with the predicate nominal F of S↴.

The relative clause of a pseudo-cleft construction may be a pronominal one, and the pronoun is often based on the interrogative pronoun. This is not definitional.

Content interrogatives

In a content interrogative sentence, the interrogative pronoun has focus function. Such a sentence is often coded as a cleft-sentence or a pseudo-cleft sentence, as in :

The interrogative pronouns qui ‘who’ and que ‘what’ represent the F of the diagram, but occupy initial position in S↴. In speech, they are univerbated with the rest of S↴. In this way, the inherited interrogative pronouns (which are phonologically very weak indeed) are currently being renewed as [kjɛski] 'who' and [kɛskə] 'what'. In many languages including Cabecar, the interrogative pronouns share a morphemic or submorphemic element of a similar origin.

Where the relative clause of the pseudo-cleft sentence works with an interrogative pronoun, the difference between a pseudo-cleft sentence and a dependent interrogative clause may be minimal. is a celebrated example (in the 1970s) of this structural similarity:

a is a pseudo-cleft sentence; #b is an interrogative clause plus matrix clause. The diagnostic properties for this analysis are provided by the prosody:

• a has the suspension intonation typical of a pseudo-cleft sentence. There is no stress in the subordinate clause; main stress and highest tone is on the final focus constituent tissue.
• #b has weak focal stress on the interrogative pronoun and main stress on table, while there is no stress in the main clause.

The information structure is therefore:

• In a, the subordinate clause codes the presupposition, while the main clause predicate codes the focus of the equation.
• In #b, the subordinate clause codes the focus of the equation.

Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions

The terms designating the two main variants of clefting stem from English linguistics. The idea behind them is that the cleft-sentence is a construction sui generis, while the pseudo-cleft sentence is just a complex clause whose subject is a headless relative clause and whose predicate is non-verbal, thus not presupposing any specific cleaving operation. The terms are, nevertheless, a bit misleading (Creissels 2013). As a matter of fact, the pseudo-cleft sentence S₀ bears a completely regular and transparent paradigmatic relation to a simple S, while the cleft-sentence is a grammaticalized variant of it which involves specific rules.

The cleft-sentence and the pseudo-cleft sentence have much in common:

• They consist of a main clause with a nominal predicate that represents the focus, and a subordinate clause which represents the presupposition.
• The subordinate clause bears no extrinsic interpropositional relation to the main clause.
• The subordinate clause is an open clause, as the focal component has been extracted. This produces a phoric relation between the focal component F and the vacated position.

The category C of F generates an accessibility hierarchy for clefting, the main components of which occupy the following positions:

Hierarchy of accessibility for clefting

The rationale of this hierarchy follows the usual logic of implicational hierarchies: If a cleft-construction with a focal component of the category of a given position on the hierarchy is possible, then cleft-constructions with a focal component to the left of it on the hierarchy are possible. Clefting of a nominal constituent is straightforward (, – ), as languages have operations of extraction of NPs, relative clause formation based on NPs and NPs in predicate function. Clefting of adverbials () is more restricted since adverbial relative clauses are more complicated to form. Clefting of verbal predicates is most difficult, since a finite verb can neither simply be extracted nor be the open position of a relative clause nor be the predicate of a copula clause. Consequently, the so-called identificational cleft construction, i.e. the one where C is NP, is the default and most widespread one.

The definitional properties that distinguish the cleft-sentence and the pseudo-cleft sentence are the following:

• The pseudo-cleft sentence is an equation between the nominalized clause and the nominal predicate in which the subordinate clause functions as subject. In the cleft-sentence, the subordinate clause has no syntactic function.
• The subordinate clause of the pseudo-cleft sentence is a free relative clause and, consequently, oriented towards its open position. The subordinate clause of the cleft-sentence is a non-oriented open clause.

In general, languages can form pseudo-cleft sentences, as these require no specific operation beyond the ones just mentioned. On the other hand, a language may lack clefting s.s. Latin is such a language: it only has pseudo-cleft sentences, and these are rare in the corpus. (With its free main constituent order, it has little use for clefting.) It is no coincidence that content interrogative sentences, as in , figure prominently among the extant occurrences:

This is, at the same time, an example where the focus is the initial constituent of the main clause and the latter introduces the entire construction. Both features are explicable by interrogative syntax.

In languages which have both cleft- and pseudo-cleft sentenes – with English and Portuguese among them –, there is the possibility of a functional contrast between the two variants:

• The cleft-sentence is more versatile, since it allows to focalize anything, while the subordinate clause in the pseudo-cleft construction obeys the restrictions on relativization.
• Whenever the two cleft constructions have their default order, the cleft-sentence has the communicative effect of insistence, while the pseudo-cleft sentence has the communicative effect of suspension.

Clefting and clause topology

The topology of a (complex) linguistic unit is a set of principles that define syntagmatic positions in it and govern their occupation. Most relevant is the topology of the sentence and the clause. At the level of the sentence, some positions are universally available for use in information structure. They are visualized in the following diagram.¹

¹ It is postulated as the Language Independent Preferred Order of Constituents (LIPOC) in Dik 1981:189ff.

• The position preceding the initial clause boundary is occupied by left-dislocated topics. This is not just one position, since left-dislocated topics can be stacked ().
• The position at the initial clause boundary is occupied by a fronted-focus component (). Given the grammaticalization from a cleft-sentence to an initial-focus construction, this position may be outside or inside the clause.
• The final position in the clause is occupied by a final focal component.

illustrates a left-dislocated topic and a fronted focus.

Occupation of these positions is optional in the sense that a clause may be complete without having a left-dislocated topic or a focus, with the consequence that what appears at the beginning of such a clause may be either or neither. The position following the initial focus is generally occupied by thematic material, with the consequence that the focal component may either precede or follow thematic material.

The left-dislocated topic precedes not only a simple, but also a complex clause. Consequently, a cleft-sentence may be preceded by a left-dislocated topic. In , a left-dislocated topic precedes the topical subordinate clause of a suspensive pseudo-cleft sentence. In , a left-dislocated topic precedes the focal clause of a cleft-sentence.

Given this great variety of cleft-constructions, there are also various paths for their grammaticalization. On the other hand, given a grammaticalized focus construction, it is often difficult to identify, in the absence of historical evidence, the cleft-construction that it stems from.

References

Creissels, Denis 2021, ‘Remarks on the grammaticalization of identificational clefts’. Faits de Langue 52.1: 13-31.

Dik, Simon C. 1981, Functional grammar. Dordrecht & Cinnaminson: Foris (Publications in Languages Sciences, 7); 3rd rev. ed.