Debate (Cecil Ward): Clefting and bleaching

[Elizabeth J. Pyatt]

[This is an abridged version of a question I posted to the Role
and>Reference Grammar list]

I would be interested to hear listmembers opinions on the following
question:

When we see examples where a marked, especially a periphrastic,
syntactic pattern has become predominant and then partly or fully
conventionalised, and maybe also "bleached", in the sense of Hopper and
Traugott "Grammaticalisation" (CUP), what implications does this
evidence have for current linguistic frameworks?

Here are a few examples of clefts in Scottish Gaelic,

Fronting either for contrastive purposes, or emphasis, (I might
term>this "identificatory-predicate")
a)      'S    e  Leòdhasach   a   tha ann am Murchadh.
         COP 3sg Lewis-man REL is  in   in PROPER-NAME
         "Murchadh is a *Lewis-man*"
(that is "Murchadh is from the Island of Lewis", as opposed to from some
other island). This could answer either the question "Where is he from?"
or be a responsive correction to a question or assertion "Is he/he's
from, say, the Isle of Skye(?)"
>
Non-contrastive, NP-fronting.
b)      'S    e    [Sgitheanach dà-rìreabh] a bha  'san  fhear   ud
         COP 3sg Skyeman serious     REL was in-the man DEICTIC
         "That man certainly was a *real Skye-man*"
or    "That man certainly *was* a real Skye-man"
Referring to a speaker who had just delivered a plug on TV praising the
Isle of Skye extravagantly. There is certainly no "contrastive"
function, quite unlike (a).

No topicalisation function, non-contrastive, no emphasis
c)      'S   e      tidsear    a  tha ann am Pat.
         COP 3sg teacher REL is in in Pat
         "Pat is a teacher."
A straightforward statement.

Notice that the last example (c) has the exact same syntactic structure
(b). However, I would say that (c) is "unmarked" in pragmatic terms.

I would consider (c) and maybe the others to be the end result of a
historical process of conventionalisation, seeing as the straight
_uncleft_ version is (now) inaccessible, being unacceptable in various
ways.

The term "bleaching" does seem useful here, where structures that seem
to be the end result of a process of conventionalisation are markedly
periphrastic yet the marked syntactic structure carries with it no
_extra_ symantic or pragmatic "payload", if you like. Example (c) seems
to fit this description, in that the _syntactic_ construction we see
here is certainly periphrastic, and so marked,yet the sentence does
certainly not seem to "carry any additional semantic or pragmatic
payload" and the uncleft version is unacceptable (so it counts as an
example of conventionalisation)

I am thinking of the implications for frameworks such as, say, RRG, that
emphase the linkage between "syntax" (whatever that is) and
semantics/pragmatics. These frameworks emphasise how pragmatics-factors,
say, act as a "driver" and shapes the syntax. But what is happening
here?

Thinking also of P&P, things don't seem any easier. How would P&P deal
with this? Noting that the uncleft counterpart to (c)
	?Is tidsear Pat
	"Pat is a teacher"
is actually grammatical, although in my opinion unacceptable on
stylistic grounds. (As evidenced by the quite grammatical "Is Gaidheal
mi" transl. "I am a Gael", the title of a recent song, acceptable in a
poetic, "flowery" context.)

I suppose that English do-support falls into this category. Do list
members agree that that is a fair comparison? In that, the modern "do"
is periphrastic, and the "do" was presumably the carrier of some
semantic or pragmatic payload in the early stages of its rise, yet is
now thoroughly bleached in the modern language.

--
o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o

CELTLING
Post: celtling at lists.linguistlist.org OR celtling at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archives: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/celtling.html>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe - Go to Archives, then click "Join or leave" link

Website: <http://www.personal.psu.edu/ejp10/celtling>