Multiple focus and cleft sentences

Abstract

The information structure of English cleft sentences is discussed. A cleft sentence divides a proposition into two parts, which are interpreted as an exhaustive focus and a pragmatic presupposition. These two semantic components can be flexibly mapped onto the information structure categories of topic and comment to arrive at comment-topic ('stressed focus') clefts and topic-comment ('informative presupposition') clefts. Clefts thus introduce a cleft focus or even a pair of foci constructionally. They also exhibit an assertive (comment) focus, which may or may not correspond to the cleft focus. While only exclusive focus particles can associate with the cleft focus, additive and scalar focus particles can associate with the assertive focus in the cleft clause, thus giving rise to additional cleft sentences containing multiple instances of focus.

On the status of exhaustiveness in cleft sentences: An empirical and cross-linguistic study of English also-/only-clefts and Italian anche-/solo-clefts

“…We still need to understand its nature and source. Two alternative accounts have been proposed: first, exhaustiveness has been viewed as a presupposition (Delin and Oberlander 1995;Percus 1997;Hedberg 2000;Levinson 2000;Hedberg and Fadden 2007;Hedberg 2013) or a conventional implicature (Halvorsen 1978;Collins 1991: 69-70); 11 second, it has been claimed to be a conversational implicature (among others, by Horn 1981;Schulz and Van Rooij 2006and Washburn 2011for English, by Dufter 2009 for English, German and several Romance languages including Italian, as well as by Roggia 2009 for Italian). In the literature, the view of exhaustiveness as a presupposition/conventional implicature 12 or as a conversational implicature is based on its possibility of being cancelled.…”

Two kinds of focus constructions in K’iche’

“…A third line of analysis claims that the exhaustivity implication is a presupposition (Kenesei 1986;Szabolcsi 1994;Percus 1997;Bende-Farkas 2006;Hedberg 2013). In some presuppositional analyses, e.g., Percus 1997;Bende-Farkas 2006;Hedberg 2013, the similarities between cleft-like structures and definite descriptions are exploited, building on the idea that clefts conceal a discontinuous definite description, and equating the exhaustivity implication with the uniqueness (or maximality) presupposition of this definite description. In some of these analyses, the exhaustivity implication of a cleft like (26) is captured by employing a universal quantifier as in (26a) and in yet others it is captured by the iota operator as in (26b).…”

‘Il n’y a que Superman qui porte le slip par-dessus le pantalon’ – les clivées enil n’y a que x qui

“…(Yahoo 75) 1 Cependant, dans la vaste littérature linguistique sur les différents types de clivées à travers les langues, il devient de plus en plus clair que les clivées focalisent souvent d'autres parties de la phrase aussi, et non pas uniquement l'élément clivé (cf. les clivées en c'est : Katz 2000 ; Rialland et al 2002 ;Doetjes et al 2004 ;Dufter 2008 ;Dufter 2009b ;Dufter 2009a ;Destruel 2013 ;Lahousse et Borremans 2014 ; les clivées anglaises en it : Prince 1978 ;Dufter 2009b ;Hedberg 2013). Il serait alors surprenant si le potentiel focalisant de la structure en il n'y a que x qui, qui fait partie de la famille des clivées, serait limité à la focalisation de l'élément clivé.…”