21.1280, Diss: Syntax, English, Russian: Reeve: Clefts

[linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG]

LINGUIST List: Vol-21-1280. Mon Mar 15 2010. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 21.1280, Diss: Syntax, English, Russian: Reeve: Clefts

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Eric Raimy, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Catherine Adams <catherin at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 05-Mar-2010
From: Matthew Reeve < m.j.reeve.99 at cantab.net >
Subject: Clefts
 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:09:35
From: Matthew Reeve [m.j.reeve.99 at cantab.net]
Subject: Clefts

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=21-1280.html&submissionid=2615016&topicid=14&msgnumber=1
  

Institution: University of London 
Program: PhD Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2010 

Author: Matthew Reeve

Dissertation Title: Clefts 

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Subject Language(s): English (eng)
                     Russian (rus)


Dissertation Director(s):
Ad Neeleman

Dissertation Abstract:

The main argument of this thesis is that cleft constructions (and related
constructions) in various languages do not easily submit to a strictly
compositional analysis; that is, there is an apparent mismatch between their
syntax and their semantics. I show that both 'specificational' and 'expletive'
analysis of English clefts fail on both syntactic and interpretative grounds,
and propose an alternative analysis in which the cleft clause is a syntactic
modifier of the clefted XP, but a semantic modifier of the initial pronoun. I
argue that the possibility for a relative clause to have two antecedents in this
way is made possible by the existence of two separate licensing conditions, one
thematic and one syntactic, which are normally satisfied by the same DP, but in
clefts and related constructions can be satisfied by distinct DPs. Next, I
extend the analysis to clefts in Slavonic languages, particularly Russian. These
constructions differ considerably from English clefts in their syntactic
structure, but which show strong interpretative parallels with them. Finally, I
show that certain types of cleft present another type of compositionality
problem: namely, the problem of semantically relating the two DPs in
specificational sentences, the class of sentences to which clefts belong. I
argue that they involve a functional head encoding equative semantics, which
'associates' with the focus of the clause. The superficial
'non-compositionality' of clefts thus reduces to the superficial
'non-compositionality' of association with focus more generally.





-----------------------------------------------------------
This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $65,000. This money will go to help 
keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out our Space Fund 
Drive 2010 and join us for a great journey!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2010/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at  
https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: 
https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit: 
http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as 
such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 
501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These 
donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return 
(U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact 
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match 
any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your 
contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the 
EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple 
administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without 
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company 
operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST! 
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-21-1280