The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25
Full Issue PDF
[Paper List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25, No. 0, pp. 390-414
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 10 Feb 2025 Revised 08 Mar 2025 Accepted 17 Mar 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202503.390

Inverted Specificational Pseudoclefts as Last Resort for Specificational Afterthoughts
Okgi Kim
Academic Research Professor, Institute for the Study of Language and Information Kyung Hee University 26, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel: 02) 961-0211 (okgikim@khu.ac.kr)


© 2025 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

Like languages like German and Dutch (Ott and de Vries 2016), English employs so-called specificational afterthoughts (SAs) (e.g., John met someone: Mary), where the appendix (i.e., Mary) appears at the right periphery of the host clause (i.e., John met someone) and is in a cataphoric relation with the correlate (i.e., someone). Under a bi-clausal approach, I assume two different underlying structures for the appendix: one that is syntactically parallel to the host clause (SPC) and the other that is an inverted specificational pseudocleft. Adopting van Craenenbroeck’s (2010) Last Resort logic for sluicing, I propose that English SAs are derived from SPCs as the first option and from inverted specificational pseudoclefts as a Last Resort option when the corresponding SPC is independently unavailable. In the analysis of English SAs, I provide a movement-and-deletion approach, according to which the construction is derived by focus movement and PF-deletion regardless of which of the two possible underlying structures for the appendix is involved.

Keywords: specificational afterthoughts, inverted pseudoclefts, invisible last resort, focus movement
Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), held on January 2-5, 2020. I thank the audience and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticisms and suggestions.

References
1. Barros, M. 2016. Syntactic identity in ellipsis, and deviations therefrom: The case of copula clauses in sluicing. Ms., lingbuzz/002940.
2. Brody, M. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 201-225.
3. Brody, M. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In I. Kenesei, ed., Approaches to Hungarian V, 29-44. JATE.
4. Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds., A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232-286. Holt, Rinehart &Wilson.
5. Chung, S., W.A. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239-282.
6. Declerck, R. 2011. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts (Vol. 5). Walter de Gruyter.
7. den Dikken, M. 2006. Specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume I. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
8. É. Kiss, K. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74, 245-273.
9. Erteschik-Shir, N. 1977. On the Nature of Island Constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
10. Heycock, C. and A. Kroch. 2002. Topic, focus, and syntactic representations. In L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts, eds., Proceedings of WCCFL 21, 101-125. Cascadilla Press.
11. Higgins, F. R. 1973. The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
12. Jacobson, P. 1990. Raising as function composition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 423-475.
13. Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.
14. Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738.
15. Merchant, J. 2012. Ellipsis. In A. Alexiadou, T. Kiss, and M. Butt, eds., Handbook of Contemporary Syntax. Walter de Gruyter.
16. Nakao, C. 2008. On focus of negation. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics Poster Session, 61-70.
17. Ott, D. and M. de Vries. 2016. Right dislocation as deletion. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 34, 641-690.
18. Pesetsky, D. 1997. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. Mcginnis and D. Pesetsky, eds., Is the Best Good Enough, 337-383. MIT Press.
19. Pollmann, T. 1975. Een regel die subject en copula deleert. Spektator 5, 282-292.
20. Puskás, G. 1998. On the Neg-criterion in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungaric 45, 167-213.
21. Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 117-121.
22. Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
23. Ross, J. R. 1969. Guess who? In R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green and J. L. Morgan, eds., Proceedings of the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252-286. Chicago Linguistic Society.
24. Schwarzschild, R. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural language semantics 7(2), 141-177.
25. van Craenenbroeck, J. 2010. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120, 1714-1726.
26. van Craenenbroeck, J. and J. Merchant. 2013. Elliptical phenomena. In M. den Dikken, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 1427-1520. Cambridge University Press.
27. Yoshida, M., C. Nakao and I. Ortega-Santos. 2015. The syntax of why-stripping. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(1), 323-370.