The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp. 571-586
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 21 May 2023 Revised 06 Jul 2023 Accepted 12 Jul 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202307.571

All-cleft constructions in English: A corpus-based approach
Youn-Gyu Park ; Jong-Bok Kim
(1st author) M.A. student, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Kyung Hee Univ. E-mail: (youngyu0406@khu.ac.kr)
(corresponding author) Professor, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Kyung Hee Univ. E-mail: (jongbok@khu.ac.kr)


© 2023 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.
Funding Information ▼
Abstract

The English all-cleft construction, consisting of an all-cleft clause with a gap, a copula and an element licensed in the post-copula position, displays a filler-gap dependency with connectivity effect. In addition, previous literature asserts, unlike the pseudo-clef, the all-cleft construction cannot be predicational, casting several analytical and empirical questions. Key research questions include if the construction is derived from derivational processes or base-generated, what grammatical properties distinguish the construction from the related cleft constructions, and so forth. To answer some of these research questions, we have performed a comprehensive corpus investigation. Based on our corpus data, we suggest a construction-based approach to the English all-cleft that can account for its syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties, while capturing its shared properties with related cleft constructions like the pseudo-cleft.

Keywords: all-cleft, connectivity effect, corpus, construction-based, co-varying collexeme analysis
Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of this paper were talk-presented at the Summer Joint Conference of the Korean Association for Corpus Linguistics (KACL) and the Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics (KASELL) held at Korea University on June 3, 2023, and the 24th Annual International Conference of the English Department (AICED-24) held at University of Bucharest on June 10, 2023.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2022S1A5A2A03052578).

References
1. Bonelli, E. T. 1992. ‘All I’m saying is...’: The correlation of form and function in pseudo-cleft sentences. Literary and Linguistic Computing 7(1), 30-42.
2. Brezina, V. 2018. Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Cann, R. 1993. Formal semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Collins, P. 1991. Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
5. Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.
6. Declerck, R. 1983. Predicational clefts. Lingua 61, 9-45.
7. Delahunty, G. P. 1984. The analysis of English cleft sentences. Linguistic Analysis 13(2), 63-113.
8. den Dikken, M. 2006. Specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Blackwell companion to Syntax. 292-409. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
9. Erteschik-Shir, N. 1986. Wh-questions and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(2), 117-149.
10. Fauconnier, G. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3), 353-375.
11. Flickinger, D. and T. Wasow. 2013. A corpus-driven analysis of the do-be constructions. The core and the periphery: Standing on the shoulders of Ivan A. Sag. 35-63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
12. Giannakidou, A. 2002. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14. Gries, S. Th. 2019. 15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sort of corpus-linguistic measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3), 385-412.
15. Gries, S. Th. 2022. Coll.analysis 4.0. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses. Available online at https://www.stgries.info/teaching/groningen/index.html.
16. Higgins, F. R. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
17. Homer, V. 2019. That’s all. In R. Stockwell, M. O’Leary, Z. Xu and Z. L. Zhou, eds., Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 1-21. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
18. Kay, P. 2013. The limits of construction grammar. In G. Trousdale and T. Hoffmann, eds., The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. 32-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Kim, J. B. In progress. Cleft constructions in form and function mismatch in the English: A construction grammar approach.
20. Kim, J. B. and L. Michaelis. 2020. Syntactic constructions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Ladusaw, W. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York, NY: Garland.
22. Lambrecht, K. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3), 463-516.
23. R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at https://www.R-project.org/.
24. Ross, J. R. 1972. Act. In D. Davison. and G. Harman, eds., Semantics of natural language, 70-126. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
25. Soppelsa, E. F. 1980. Simple and complex contradiction and the used of emphatic do. In M. Henderson, ed., Papers of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference, 413-422.
26. Tellings, J. 2020. An analysis of all-clefts. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 5(1), 1-25.
27. Wilder, C. 2013. English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128, 142-171.