The structural non-integration ofwh-clefts

Abstract

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.

Speaking and Writing English

“…It points out that, Biber notwithstanding, unplanned speech is a distinctive genre. Section 27.4 demonstrates the different typical constructions of spoken and written English, drawing on the quantitative analyses in Biber et al (1999), Bowie and Aarts (2006), Calude (2008), D'Arcy (2014), Greenbaum and Nelson (1995b), Guz (2015), Kaltenböck (2005), Macaulay (1991), Miller and Weinert (1998), and Thompson (1988). Section 27.5 deals with objections to any analysis of unplanned speech.…”

“…42). Guz (2015) provides a taxonomy of various levels of integration of Wh-clefts in spoken English, arranged on a cline from more-to less-integrated. The cline includes clefts which exhibit a mismatch in tense, aspect, and mood of the copula verb and the verb in the cleft clause, prosodic separation between the copula and the cleft clause, omission of the copula altogether, omission of subject pronouns in the cleft clause, and multi-clause focus constituents.…”