This paper examines quasi-monoclausal left-peripheral analyses of English it-clefts.Though attractive because such analyses bring out commonalities between it-clefts on the one hand and focus fronting and wh-questions on the other, the range of word order variations available in English it-clefts reveals that such monoclausal analyses of it-clefts lead to considerable complications of implementation, ultimately undoing the gain in terms of economy that initially would seem to justify them. In particular, we will show that, on closer inspection, the presumed focus fronting in it-clefts cannot be targeting the position deployed for ' regular ' left-peripheral focus fronting. Moreover, both implementations of the monoclausal analysis discussed make the wrong predictions with respect to the distribution of it-clefts. In particular, as already argued by Hooper & Thompson (1973) and Emonds (1976), English it-clefting, unlike ' regular ' focus fronting, is not a main clause phenomenon. Given these objections, we conclude that the left-peripheral analyses of it-clefts are ill-founded. for discussion. Thanks to three anonymous referees of Journal of Linguistics for thorough and thought-provoking comments. On the basis of their comments and extensive suggestions we have been able to sharpen our minds about the core issues of our paper. Obviously, they are not responsible for the way we have used their comments.

No abstract

In the wake of the proposals for the articulated left periphery (Rizzi 1997), Meinunger (1997, 1998), Frascarelli & Ramaglia (2009, 2013) and Sleeman (2011) assign to it-clefts a representation modeled on that of wh-interrogatives and of focus fronting. This paper first outlines one precise cartographic implementation of this analysis and then it is shown that such an analysis presents a number of problems of implementation, which concern the external and internal syntax of it-clefts. Distributionally, it-clefts are shown to pattern differently from sentences with focus fronting. Moreover the monoclausal analysis raises problems of implementation, in particular given that the cleft focus can itself undergo focus fronting and wh-movement.

No abstract