Specificational there-clefts

Abstract

In this article we present functional-structural and information structure arguments for recognizing specificationalthere-clefts, i.e. clefts that specify a value for a variable. We distinguish two types which hinge on whether the matrix is a listing or a canonical existential. Listingthere-clefts enumerate one or more instances as corresponding to the variable, e.g.You are quite right David, it was engineered, seems there’s only me and you who can see this.Quantifyingthere-clefts indicate the quantity of instantiation of the variable, e.g.Look at the shape of it. There’s only one thing that’s that shape.

Frenchil y aclefts, existential sentences and the Focus-Marking Hypothesis

“…Thus, while modifying relative clauses and their antecedents form a complex NP, the relative clause in a cleft is said to be a small clause or a pseudo-relative structure (see e.g. Jespersen, 1937; Lambrecht, 1986, 1988, 2001; Reeve, 2012; Belletti, 2013; Davidse, 2014 and many others) 8…”

“…Since the relative clause in this type of cleft expresses a variable ( x wants to go to the theatre ), for which the clefted element provides a value ( x = Beth ), they are seen as specificational sentences (see also Collins, 1992; Davidse, 2000; Piotrowski, 2009; Davidse, 2014 on English there clefts of this type) 10 1973; Declerck, 1983, 1988; Lambrecht, 2001; Den Dikken, 2013).…”

Non-prototypical clefts

“…In the last decades, special attention has been paid to crosslinguistic differences with respect to semantic constraints, such as the definiteness restriction on the pivot nominal of existentials, and to pragmatic functions, such as the discourse-functional properties of clefts. On the basis of the different nature and behaviour of these properties, these studies have identified several types and subtypes of existential and cleft sentences, some of which only share superficial properties with the prototypical construction (see Bolinger 1972;Milsark 1979;Berrutto 1986;Declerck 1988;Lambrecht 1988Lambrecht , 1994Lambrecht , 2001Hedberg 1990Hedberg , 2000Abbott 1992Abbott , 1993Collins 1992;Delahunty 1995Delahunty , 2001McNally 1997;Davidse 1999Davidse , 2014De Cesare 2007Bicler and Davidse 2008;Leonetti 2008;Dufter 2009;Roggia 2009;Cruschina 2012a;Lahousse and Borremans 2014;Karssenberg 2017, forthcoming;Davidse and Kimps 2016;Karssenberg and Lahousse forthcoming).…”

Reconnecting Form and Meaning

“…The data set is analysed into a taxonomy of three functional subtypes of there-clefts on the basis of their constructional form-meaning characteristics and typical information-structural patterns. For the two specificational subtypes of there-clefts, enumerative and quantificational there-clefts, Kaltenböck draws on the seminal descriptions elaborated by Kristin and colleagues(Davidse 1999b(Davidse , 2000(Davidse , 2014Davidse & Kimps 2016;. The third type is the relatively understudied presentational-eventive there-cleft, a thetic structure which does not specify a value for a pragmatically presupposed variable but instead forms "a single canonical clause whose proposition is pragmatically asserted"(Lambrecht 2001: 507).…”