Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht
Edited by Stacey Katz Bourns and Lindsy L. Myers
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 244] 2014
► pp. 199–222

Contrasting c'est -clefts and it-clefts in discourse

Although the French c’est-cleft and the English it-cleft appear at first glance to share similar syntactic and pragmatic properties (they are both what Lambrecht 1994 calls “argument focus” constructions), their use in discourse is not always the same. One finds a number of situations in which the c’est-cleft is required but the it-cleft is pragmatically odd. The reason for this discrepancy has to do with French prosodic restrictions that do not exist in English, thus creating a motivation for the cleft in French that is not found in English. In addition, various c’est-cleft types and c’est-cleft “lookalikes” in French correspond to different types of constructions in English, demonstrating the importance of analyzing naturally occurring discourse to determine pragmatic well-formedness.
Published online: 5 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.244.10kat
References (27)
References
Bley-Vroman, Robert. 1986. “Hypothesis Testing in Second-Language A cquisition Theory.” Language Learning 36: 353–76. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Carter-Thomas, Shirley. 2009. “The French C’est-cleft: Functional and Formal Motivations.” In La linguistique systémique fonctionelle et la langue française , ed. by David Banks, Simon Eason, and Janet Ormrod, 127–156. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter C. 1991. Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English . London and New York: Routledge. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies in Copular Sentences, Clefts, and Pseudo-clefts . Leuven: University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Delin, Judy. 1995. “Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts.” Language and Cognitive Processes , 10 (2):97–120. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Destruel Johnson, Emilie. 2012. “An Empirical Study on the Meaning and Use of the French C’est-Cleft.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Bryan. 2012. “Syntax and Discourse in Near-Native F rench: Clefts and Focus.” Language Learning 62 (3):902–930. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay. 1995. Construction Grammar Coursebook . Ms. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeannette K. 1977. “Where do Cleft Sentences Come from?” Language 53 (3):543–559. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hagen, L. Kirk, and Jean DeWitt. 1993. “Teaching French Cleft Constructions to English Speakers.” Canadian Modern Language Review 49: 550–66.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic Syntax . London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Katz, Stacey L. 1997. “The Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of the C’est-Cleft Construction.” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Katz, Stacey. 2000a. “A Functional Approach to the Teaching of the French C’est-Cleft.” French Review 74 (2):248–262. Google Scholar
. 2000b. “Categories of C’est-Cleft Constructions.” Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 45 (3/4):1001–1021.Google Scholar
Katz, Stacey L., and Carl Blyth. 2007. Teaching French Grammar in Context: Theory and Practice . New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, Betsy. 1983. Minnesota Corpus. Available by request from the creator.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. “Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse , ed. by John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson, 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2001. “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics 39 (3):463–516. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Constraints on Subject-Focus Mapping: A Contrastive Analysis.” In Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure , ed. by Carsten Breul, and Edward Göbbel, 77–100. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A Comparison of Wh-clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse. Language 54: 883–906. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Roubaud, Marie-Noëlle. 1994. “Le sujet dans les énoncés pseudo-clivées.” Recherches sur le français parlé 14: 147–171.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Constructions en c’est: les pseudo-clivées.” Cahiers de Grammaire 23: 81–94.Google Scholar
. 2000. Les constructions pseudo-clivées en français contemporain . Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1988. “It-Clefts and WH-Clefts: Two Awkward Sentence Types.” Journal of Linguistics 24: 343–379. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. 1994. “The Dynamics of Information Packaging.” In Integrating information structure into constraint?based and categorical approaches , ed. by Elisbet Engdahl. Deliverable R1.3.B, DYANA–2 (BRA 6852), 1–26. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Destruel, Emilie
2023. Processing pragmatic inferences in L2 French speakers. Second Language Research 39:4 ► pp. 969 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide
2022. Translation as a source of pragmatic interference?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Renans, Agata
2021. Definite descriptions of events: progressive interpretation in Ga (Kwa). Linguistics and Philosophy 44:2 ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
DESTRUEL, EMILIE & BRYAN DONALDSON
2017. Second language acquisition of pragmatic inferences: Evidence from the Frenchc'est-cleft. Applied Psycholinguistics 38:3 ► pp. 703 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.