The That’s X is Y Construction as an Information-Structure Amalgam

Abstract

n/a

Information Structure and Discourse Function of Amalgam Wh-Clefts

“…We further included only those structural types to which the standard vs. amalgam alternation applies, thus excluding cases in which what appears as the subject of the wh-clause (e.g., What bugs me is ...). Finally, we also did not count as wh-clefts instances of the That's X is Y construction (e.g., That's what I'm trying to do is go back to blonde), a conventionalized grammatical construction in its own right, with its own information structure and discourse function (see Ross-Hagebaum 2004).…”

Given two be’s, how do they Agree?

“…However, most linguists consider either that intrusive-fee is marginal and undergoing change (Shapiro 1993, Tuggy 1996 or that it is a fully legitimate construction (McConvell 1988(McConvell , 2004Andersen 2002;Coppock et al 2006), possibly rooted in a performance phenomenon. 3 In particular, many scholars consider the constructions to be conflations, blends, or amalgams of two constructions (e.g., Lambrecht 1988, Andersen 2002, Ross-Hagebaum 2004, Brenier and Michaelis 2005, Calude 2008, Curzan 2012. For example, (la) might be analyzed as a blend of a pseudo-cleft construction, as in (2a), and a regular specificational copular construction, as in (2b).…”

“…O'Neill (2013) also presents a new syntactic analysis of double be constructions, arguing that they are specificational copular amalgams. Although several authors point out that intrusive fee can appear with different forms than the third person singular present tense form is (e.g., Jehn 1979, McConvell 1988, Shapiro and Haley 2002, Ross-Hagebaum 2004, Zwicky 2007, Massam, 2013, as in (7) with are is, no one has systematically studied the patterning of these forms. 7The cruel facts of life are, is that not every person who teaches Art is a good artist himself.…”

Demonstrative clefts and double cleft constructions in spontaneous spoken English*

“…The second, and most important point concerns the unanimous consensus that double clefts (along with the various other constructions included the categories discussed) should not be regarded as performance errors and should be considered part of the (spoken) grammar of English (McConvell 1988:293, Massam 1999:345, Ross‐Hagebaum 2004:403).…”

“…Finally, various analyses of the double cleft have been put forward such as, the paratactic apposition approach (Massam 1999) and various amalgam approaches (McConvell 1988, Ross‐Hagebaum 2004). The motivation for such different analyses appears to rest on the individual researcher’s assumptions of which construction is most closely related to the one being analysed.…”