Information Structure and Discourse Function of Amalgam Wh-Clefts

Koops, Christian; Ross-Hagebaum, Sebastian

doi:10.3765/bls.v34i1.3590

Cited by 3 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar explanation of multi-clause complementation seen in (7) can be extended to apply to wh-clefts with do, as confirmed by Koops & Ross-Hagebaum (2008), who cite examples such as (8) below:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Note that in (2) the focus clause mirrors the syntax of the wh-clause (tense, aspect) and repeats some lexical material (you're going to). This is typical of amalgam wh-clefts (see also Koops & Ross-Hagebaum 2008). Such parallelism and repetition establishes a link between the clauses that binds them together, although, at the same time, the separateness of the main clause is still distinct.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Firstly, main clauses have been observed in the position of copular complement, i.e. in amalgam wh-clefts (Weinert & Miller 1996;Hopper & Thompson 2008;Koops & Ross-Hagebaum 2008;Miller 2011: 32-9;Callies 2012). All these authors note the matching syntax (tense and aspect) across the two clauses and repetition of lexical and syntactic material (identical or coreferential subject NPs, repetition of auxiliaries; see example (15)), but also indicate lexical and syntactic mismatches (non-coreferential subject NPs, see (16), and mismatching tense/aspect properties; see (17)).…”

Section: Previous Research: Types Of Non-integration Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Miller & Weinert (1998) analyse the same collection of wh-clefts and report that '[a]lmost all the wh-clefts in the Map Task dialogues and the spontaneous conversations are unintegrated ' (1998: 74). Koops & Ross-Hagebaum (2008) study spoken American English against a database that is notably larger than that of . They note that in their data amalgam wh-clefts are especially common with the verb do as the whclause predicate.…”

Section: Previous Research: Types Of Non-integration Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The structural non-integration ofwh-clefts

Guz¹

2015

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weinert & Miller (1996) suggest that English wh-clefts are a heterogeneous class in that they can have varied degrees of structural integration. Many such constructions depart structurally from the canonical wh-cleft which consists of a wh-clause, the copula and a focus constituent, and in which all the three elements are brought together into a fully integrated utterance. In the types of wh-clefts displaying looser structure, their lack of syntactic integration has so far been related to such linguistic features as (a) omission of the copula, (b) non-canonical copular complementation, e.g. independent main clauses instead of standard infinitival phrases appearing in the focus constituent, (c) lack of a clearly identifiable copular complement, (d) the focusing effect of the wh-clause extending over several clauses (Weinert & Miller 1996; Koops & Ross-Hagebaum 2008; Hopper & Thompson 2008; Callies 2012). Although the disintegrating effect of these features has been observed, the extent of the phenomenon in modern English has not been properly established and other non-integration features have not been investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use corpus data to identify and examine such non-integration features and to investigate the extent – expressed quantitatively – to which these features are found in wh-clefts with the verb do in the wh-clause. The article also points out the formulaic status of those wh-clauses which become disconnected from their focus phrases.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Previous Research: Types Of Non-integration Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Previous Research: Types Of Non-integration Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The structural non-integration ofwh-clefts

Guz¹

2015

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crucially, they share the specificational function. It should also be pointed out that non-integrated pseudoclefts, including cases of copula "omission," are well-attested in spoken English (Weinert and Miller 1996, Hopper 2001, Koops and Ross-Hagebaum 2008. An example is given in (9).…”

Section: Early Pseudocleft Variantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity

Koops¹,

Hilpert²

2009

Typological Studies in Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter examines the diachronic rise of a syntactically and pragmatically complex construction type: pseudoclefts. Given that cleft constructions combine available components of grammar-relative clauses and copular clauses-do they arise in full-fledged form? If they emerge gradually, what constrains their development? We first present a corpus-based analysis of the history of English pseudoclefts and develop qualitative and quantitative measures to identify properties of pseudoclefts at different developmental stages. We then apply the same measures of grammaticalization in a synchronic comparison of pseudoclefts in contemporary spoken and written German, Swedish, and English in order to test their crosslinguistic validity. We find that pseudoclefts develop gradually in a process driven by the pragmatic exploitation of their presuppositional structure (Lambrecht 1994). 1

show abstract

Extra be: The syntax of shared shell-noun constructions in English

Massam¹

2017

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information Structure and Discourse Function of Amalgam Wh-Clefts

Abstract: n/a

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

The structural non-integration ofwh-clefts

The structural non-integration ofwh-clefts

The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity

Extra be: The syntax of shared shell-noun constructions in English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About