23.5297, Review: Semantics; Syntax; English; Russian: Reeve (2012)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-23-5297. Sun Dec 16 2012. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 23.5297, Review: Semantics; Syntax; English; Russian: Reeve (2012)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:39:07
From: Avelino Corral Esteban [avelino.corral at uam.es]
Subject: Clefts and their Relatives

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=23-5297.html&submissionid=5730376&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=5730376


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-2924.html

Author: Matthew  Reeve
Title: Clefts and their Relatives
Series Title: Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 185
Publisher: John Benjamins
Year: 2012

Reviewer: Avelino Corral Esteban, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

SUMMARY

This monograph seeks to present an innovative generative analysis of cleft
constructions, whose study has always presented a challenge for syntactic
theory. In it, the author, Matthew Reeve argues that clefts should be analysed
in such a way that the locality conditions on the modification  can be revised
so that they account for the internal structure of the two DPs and
consequently permit ´discontinuous´ modification of the clefted constituent.
This monograph contains six chapters, including the introduction, references
and index. The main objective of this book is to reveal the existence of an
apparent mismatch between the syntax and semantics of clefts and related
constructions and attempt to solve such a mismatch by bringing clefts in line
with discontinuous modification patterns.

Chapter One is a brief introduction containing a summary of the most important
issues that are dealt with in each of the subsequent chapters. In this brief
chapter, the author deals with the issue of determining what can be regarded
as a ´cleft construction`, since this is not an easy question to answer.

Chapter Two begins by offering a brief summary on the previous analyses of
cleft constructions, under which there is no syntax / semantics mismatch.
According to their focus, derivational accounts can be classified into two
groups, that is, extrapositional and expletive accounts: extrapositional
accounts primarily focus on the it-cleft as a copular sentence and take the
cleft clause as modifying the cleft pronoun “it”; in contrast, expletive
accounts claim that the cleft clause is a type of relative clause that does
not restrict or modify the syntactically neighbouring clefted constituent and
consider the cleft pronoun and copula to be semantically empty. Subsequent to
this review of previous generative work on English clefts, the rest of the
chapter offers the author´s own, distinct analysis of English clefts, which
draws essentially on Hedberg (2000). The author presents a syntactic analysis
of clefts, whereby the cleft clause is a restrictive relative clause and
consequently behaves like a modifier of the clefted constituent, hence, the
former is syntactically represented as adjoined to the latter  (rather than
being base-generated as an adjunct to the cleft pronoun or as an adjunct to
the VP). Likewise, he also argues that the cleft pronoun behaves like a
referential pronoun and therefore is responsible for the presuppositions of
clefts, hence the initial pronoun is non-expletive. The assumption of these
two features apparently gives rise to a series of syntax / semantics
mismatches, which will be dealt with in the rest of the book.

Chapter Three proposes a solution to every syntax / semantics mismatch. The
first one comes from the fact that the cleft clause is adjoined to the clefted
constituent, but semantically modifies the initial pronoun. The author argues
that this problem can be solved if modification by a relative clause is
possible not just under sisterhood, but also when licensing under conditions
based on c/m - command (i.e. c-command and / or m-command) which normally
gives the same results as sisterhood, but which additionally allows
´discontinuous` modification. In other words, the problem is that despite the
fact that the cleft clause is neither underlyingly adjoined to “it” nor
licensed as a modifier of “it” by the Complement Principle (which is
conditioned by government relations), it can be interpreted as restricting the
reference of “it” if we argue that the cleft clause essentially has two
antecedents that fulfill two distinct licensing functions: a thematic function
and a syntactic function. Thanks to the evidence provided by an endless amount
of examples, which have been taken from Germanic languages (English mainly,
but also German and Dutch), it seems plausible to conclude that the thematic
and syntactic requirements are satisfied most commonly in a strictly
compositional manner (i.e. under sisterhood), but also that in certain cases,
they can be satisfied by a structure that does not involve sisterhood. Another
type of syntax / semantics mismatch arises in another type of cleft
construction that occurs in several Slavic languages. In this type of cleft,
there is a neuter singular pronoun preceding a focused XP and an ´open
clause´. The main difference with respect to the form of the English cleft
construction lies in the fact the Slavic counterpart contains no copular verb
and the open clause does not take the form of a relative clause. The author
argues that the latter type should also be treated as parallel to
specificational sentences, despite the formal differences displayed. These
problems are further explored in the subsequent chapter.

Chapter Four attempts to provide the analysis of English clefts carried out in
the previous chapter with a cross-typological orientation by offering an
analysis of Russian (as well as other Slavic) clefts.  This analysis reveals a
new type of clefts that differs from English clefts in that it lacks evidence
of copular and relative clause structure. The author proves that, by applying
the analysis of Chapter 3 to Russian clefts, it is possible not just to
account for their interpretative properties, but also to capture some
otherwise mysterious syntactic properties (mainly, the fact that the focus
generally immediately follows the pronoun, appearing then in IP-adjoined
position), in contrast to non-cleft focus-fronting in Russian, which may
alternatively target a VP-adjoined position. This contrastive analysis also
explores various problems that arise in the relationship between the cleft
clause and the cleft pronoun in English and Russian. The author states that in
both languages the cleft clause restricts the reference of the cleft pronoun
semantically, despite apparently entering into a syntactic relationship with
the cleft pronoun that would allow a relationship of sisterhood. Consequently,
this study of Slavic clefts has interesting implications for the
cross-linguistic typology of clefts, since it proves that, despite the fact
that the syntax of cleft constructions can vary quite considerably across
languages, all the different types of clefts retain a specificational
interpretation. This claim allows us not to have to analyse all the different
cleft constructions by assimilating them to English clefts, as all types of
clefts can be analysed analogously if we assume that they share the same
pragmatic function.

The fifth chapter explores the syntax of specificational sentences more in
depth. In it, the author explores the problem of how the cleft pronoun is
semantically related to the clefted constituent or (taking into account that
this construction is a type of specificational sentence) how the cleft pronoun
and the clefted constituents, which are linked by the copula in a
specificational sentence, are semantically related. The author solves the
problem by treating specificational / equative sentences as structures
involving an association with focus. In addition to proposing that the pronoun
“it” thematically licenses a relative clause and the focus of the clause
syntactically licenses the relative, the author suggests a relatively unified
treatment of English and Russian clefts for the syntax of specificational
sentences in general, which leads to the assumption that specificational
sentences differ syntactically from predicational sentences in that they
contain a functional head labeled ´Eq` (i.e. Equative) in the extended verbal
projection. This element equates the denotations of the two DPs (e.g. the
cleft pronoun and the clefted constituent) and has the semantic effect of
identifying the two XPs, that is, ´Eq` makes a point of turning the
post-copular XP into an identity predicate that can then be applied to the
pre-copular XP, giving rise to an equative reading. What is new about this
proposal is that it is this functional head, ´Eq`, that associates with focus.

The concluding chapter summarises the main proposals discussed in the previous
chapters. It also highlights the idea that some constructions involve syntax /
semantics mismatches and that the traditional way that has always been used in
order to resolve such mismatches (i.e. by positing a level of representation
at which no mismatch occurs) cannot account for the mismatch found in English
clefts. To that end, it is essential to understand that syntax and semantics
may not always work together. This argument is reflected in the fact that,
despite the different syntax that English and Russian clefts exhibit, they
involve the same syntax / semantics mapping.  This leads to the assumption
that, although existing types of clefts differ syntactically, they are all
identical (thereby respecting the characterisation of Universal Grammar) at
the semantic level in the sense that they share a common specificational
interpretation.

EVALUATION

''Clefts and their relatives'' is certainly a monograph whose title clearly
indicates potential audiences who might be interested in its reading. Although
any interested linguist will likely benefit from having read the findings in
this book, syntacticians and semanticists desiring a concise and interesting
look into these phenomena will specifically benefit from it; especially from
the three central chapters. Furthermore, despite attracting the attention of a
specific group of scholars interested in the topic of cleft constructions, the
book turns out to be a unique contribution to general linguistics, especially
due to the analysis that it offers regarding the syntactic representation of
these constructions in which the author´s proposal manages to overcome many
long-lasting problems. The overall goal of this book, which consists of
solving the problems derived from an apparent syntax / semantics mismatch of
cleft constructions, is met with incredible success.

The book is a single coherent work that, in light of its goal of treating
clefts and restrictive relative clauses alike, raises interesting implications
for future research. Although its generative orientation is barely alluded to
in this book, the analysis of clefts and related constructions is developed
within such an approach. Also, although the second chapter of this book begins
the analysis of clefts by discussing previous literature on this issue, it has
no critical orientation; the author´s method of analysis is based primarily on
Hedberg (2000) and, although he rejects the two strands of the previous
generative work on English clefts, he incorporates ideas of both the
extrapositional and the expletive accounts into his own analysis. This book
succeeds in offering a new analysis of cleft constructions and, in my mind,
should be studied along with Pavey´s (2004) study of cleft constructions,
which, despite being a work within a different theoretical framework (i.e.
Role and Reference Grammar framework, which can be classified as a moderate
functional approach), bears a strong resemblance to this book in the sense
that both highlight the importance of the specificational function in the
analysis of clefts and offer a detailed comparison between cleft constructions
and relative clauses, thereby shedding light on the controversial issue
regarding a probable common origin. This book stands out, as it gives an
excellent account of the structure of cleft constructions, based on ample
empirical evidence that is provided by numerous examples taken primarily from
English but also from Russian and other languages such as German and Dutch,
which grants a strong  typological orientation to this study. Future ambitious
researchers might seriously consider seeking examples from African, Asian or
American languages that can support the ideas conveyed in this work.

Finally, in terms of methodology, the book is extremely well organised with
even-length chapters (except for the introductory chapter, obviously) that
each deal with a specific topic and follow a logical sequence. Also, this book
provides a clear account of the research methodology followed to gather the
data and reach conclusions. The author clearly displays the steps he followed
to reach his conclusions and subsequently explains these fully. Furthermore,
though the size of the volume is a necessary limitation, readers may be
surprised by the enormous amount of examples that support the author´s view
regarding each issue. The data the author provides are always relevant and
poignant. In addition to it, another useful attribute of the book is the
inclusion of summary points at the end of each section that help the reader
assimilate the most relevant points and actively test his/her knowledge of the
information found in each chapter before moving on to the next issue.

All in all, the book is a must-read for those working on the structure of
complex NP constructions, as it sheds light on various linguistic patterns and
attempts to provide explanations for many of them. It establishes itself as
one of the most complete and in-depth analyses of the topic to date, and is
likely to become necessary reading for any future researchers wishing to
venture into the curiosities of cleft constructions. The author does not claim
to have all the answers but he makes it clear that his work is a step forward
in achieving a comprehensive understanding of this complicated grammatical
construction. It is not an introductory book, as it requires a solid knowledge
of several linguistic issues (as well as knowledge of generative grammar)
because the material itself is complicated and the author does not give
detailed definitions of the linguistic concepts discussed. However, any
researcher interested in general linguistics striving to better understand
cleft constructions and their relationship with other related constructions
must have a copy of this volume.
 
REFERENCES

Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft
sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1 (2): 149-168.

Davidse, Kristin. 2000. A constructional approach to clefts. Linguistics 28
(6): 1101-1131.

Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and
Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Delahunty, Gerald. 1981. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of English Cleft
Sentences. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Delin, Judy. 1989. Cleft Constructions in Discourse. Ph. D. dissertation.
University of Edinburgh.

Den Dikken, Marcel 2009. Predication and specification in the syntax of cleft
sentences. Ms, City University of New York.

E. Kiss, Katalin. 1999. The English cleft construction as a focus phrase. In
Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 180],
Lunella Mereu (ed.) 217-229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. The Discourse Function of Cleft Sentences in English.
Ph. D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. On the referential status of clefts. Language 76 (4):
891-920

Pavey, Emma Louise. 2004. The English it-cleft construction: a Role and
Reference Grammar analysis. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Sussex.

Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. Proceedings of NELS 27:337-351.

Sornicola, Rosanna. 1988. It-clefts and wh-clefts: two awkward sentence types.
Journal of Linguistics 24 (2): 343-379.


About the Reviewer:
Avelino Corral Esteban is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English
Philology at both the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and the Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, Spain. His main research focus is the study of the
grammar of the Native American languages spoken in the Great Plains area, such
as Lakhota, Cheyenne, Blackfoot or Crow, within the Role and Reference Grammar
framework.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-23-5297	
----------------------------------------------------------