Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.289-308
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2019
Received 07 Jul 2019 Revised 10 Sep 2019 Accepted 17 Sep 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.3.201909.289

On the Categorial Restriction of Clefted XPs in English

Sun-Woong Kim
Professor, Department of English and Industry Kwangwoon University 20 Kwangwoon-ro, Nowon-gu Seoul, Korea, Tel: (02)940-5364 swkim@kw.ac.kr

Abstract

The primary concern of this paper is why clefted XPs in English cleft sentences are categorially restricted: VP (and V as well), AP, and non-finite CP (CP[-fin]) are not eligible for clefting, while DP, PP, and finite CP (CP[+fin]) are. Under the assumption that cleft sentences in English can be derived either by movement or by base-generation of the clefted XP, it is claimed that the source of the categorial restriction can be both representational and derivational. The base-generation (or matching), requires a null operator (Op) movement for independent reasons, and this Op forms a relative clause with the clefted XP as its head noun (antecedent). Due to its non-nominal nature of AP, VP, or CP[-fin], those categories are not eligible for the antecedent of a relative clause with the null operator. This is a violation of the representational constraint. When the direct movement of the clefted XP is involved, this must obey a phase-based restriction on the deletion of the lower copy. When this condition is not met, the derivation crashes. This is a violation of the derivational constraint. Both representational and derivational considerations must be taken into to explain the categorial restriction. Two additional topics in clefts regarding “additional CP effect” and morphological mismatch are also discussed as extensions of the proposed analysis in the appendix.

Keywords:

cleft sentence, clefted XP, focus, categorial restriction, phase, Relator, RP

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at Dongguk Workshop on Clefts, June 6, 2019, Dongguk University. I would like to thank the participants for their comments and ideas about clefts and for the discussion we shared about cleft sentences. I owe much to three anonymous reviewers of Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics for the improvement of the earlier draft. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5A2A01031269).

References

  • Aarts, Bas. 2018. English Syntax and Argumentation (5th ed.). London: Palgrave.
  • Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 149–168.
  • Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 27-89. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00148]
  • Bošković, Željko. 2018. On movement out of moved elements, labels, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 49, 247-282. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00273]
  • Browing, Marguerite. 1987. Null Operator Constructions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Carrera Hernández, Ana. 2007. Gapping as a syntactic dependency. Lingua 117, 2106-2133. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.004]
  • Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacons and P. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Co.
  • Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In P. Cullicover, T. Wasow and Adrian Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, 71-132. New York: Academic Press.
  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean Roger Vergnaud, 133-166. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007]
  • Culicover, Peter and Michael Rochemont. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 23-47.
  • den Dikken, Marcel. 2007a. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 1-41. [https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.001]
  • den Dikken, Marcel. 2007b. Specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 292-409, Oxford and Boston: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch61]
  • Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530]
  • Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kim, Jong-Bok. 2007. Syntax and semantics of English it-cleft constructions: A constraint-based analysis. Studies in Modern Grammar 48, 217-235.
  • Kiss, É. Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74, 245–73. [https://doi.org/10.2307/417867]
  • Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the Minimalist Program. In H. Campos and P. Kempchinsky, eds., Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero, 251-275. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
  • Miller, Philip and Barbara Hemforth. 2014. Verb Phrase Ellipsis with Nominal Antecedents. Ms. Université Paris Diderot.
  • Moon, Gui-Sun. 2013. The syntax and semantics of it-clefts. Studies in Generative Grammar 23, 4, 295-320. [https://doi.org/10.15860/sigg.23.3.201308.295]
  • Ott, Denis. 2018. VP-fronting: Movement vs. dislocation. The Linguistic Review 35, 243-282.
  • Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 27, 337–351. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iabi.1997.27.2.116]
  • Reeve, Matthew. 2011. The syntactic structure of English clefts. Lingua 121, 142–171. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.004]
  • Reeve, Matthew. 2012. Clefts and their Relatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.185]
  • Reeve, Matthew. 2013a. Conditions on ellipsis licensing: Evidence from gapping and cleft ellipsis. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 144–175.
  • Reeve, Matthew. 2013b. The cleft pronoun and cleft clause in English. In K. Hartmann and T. Veenstra, eds., Cleft Structures, 165–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.06rev]
  • Reeve, Matthew. 2014. If there's anything cleft ellipsis resembles, it’s (pseudo)gapping. In Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 351-360. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
  • Ross, John Robert. 1972. Nouniness. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
  • Sugimoto, Kenji. 2018. An argmnent structure a1temation of change-of-state verbs under VP deletion. JELS 35, 145-151.
  • Thoms, Gary and George Walkden. 2017. vP-fronting with and without remnant movement. Ms. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671800004X]
  • Thornton, Rosalind, Hirohisa Kiguchi and Elena D’Onofrio. 2018. Cleft sentences and reconstruction in child language. Language 94, 405-431. [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0021]
  • Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752995]