[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 289-308
Abbreviation: KASELL
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)
Funding Information ▼ Ministry of Education National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2018S1A5A2A01031269

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.