il ya clefts

C’est clefts versus il y a clefts
in French
Lena Karssenberg & Karen Lahousse
KU Leuven (Belgium)
6 December 2014
Going Romance 2014 Lisbon
0. INTRODUCTION
C’est clefts
•  C’est cleft = prototypically Focus-Background (but not always! Cf. below)
(1)
[Context: Q: Qui chante? Who’s singing?]
A: C’est Jean qui chante.
~ Jean chante.
it.is John who is.singing
‘JOHN is singing.’
•  Cleft Relative Clause (CRC) = given/presupposed & expresses a variable
(‘someone is singing’)
•  Clefted Element (CE) = focus & provides a value for the variable
(‘that someone is JOHN’)
•  Extensive literature: Doetjes et al. 2004, Dufter 2008/2009ab, Belletti
2008/2009/2012, Cruschina 2012/2014, Rialland et al. 2002, Smits 1989, Roggia
2008, Hobæk Haff 2006, Bouchard et al. 2007...
Il y a clefts
•  Il y a cleft = always ‘presentational’ / ‘all-new’ / ‘all-focus’
(according to literature, but see below!)
(2)
[Context: Q: - What’s happening?]
A: - (il)
y a le facteur qui arrive!
(EXPL) there has the mailman who is.coming
‘The mailman is coming!’
•  Typical of spoken French
•  Underresearched w.r.t. c’est cleft
[but see elements in Ashby 1999, Cappeau & Deulofeu 2001,
Choi-Jonin & Lagae 2005, Lambrecht 1988/1994/2000/2001, Léard
1992, Willems & Meulleman 2010, Cruschina 2012, GirySchneider 1988]
Cleft Relative Clause >< Restrictive Relative Clause
•  Cleft Relative Clause (CRC)
o 
o 
(2)
does not specify a subtype
does not form a complex NP with the CE (see also Cruschina 2012)
Cleft: il y a + CE + CRC
(il)
y
a [le facteur]CE [qui arrive]CRC!
(EXPL) there has the mailman
who is.coming
‘The mailman is coming!’
Cleft Relative Clause >< Restrictive Relative Clause
•  Cleft Relative Clause (CRC)
o 
o 
does not specify a subtype
does not form a complex NP with the CE (see also Cruschina 2012)
(2)
Cleft: il y a + CE + CRC
(il)
y
a [le facteur]CE [qui arrive]CRC!
(EXPL) there has the mailman
who is.coming
‘The mailman is coming!’
(3)
Il y a + [NP + Restrictive Relative Clause (RRC)]NP
Il y a [des enfants qui aiment le fromage]NP+RRC , d’autres non.
There are [children that like cheese]NP+RRC,
others don’t.
•  Same distinction holds for it / c’est + CE + CRC >< it / c’est + [NP +
RRC]NP (cf. Collins 1991, Davidse 2000)
This talk
1.  Information Structure (IS)
o 
o 
Corpus research: 3 IS-configurations for il y a clefts
New typology of IS-functions for c’est clefts and il y a clefts
2. Existential presupposition
o 
≠ inherent property of c’est clefts
o 
BUT: ~ specific IS function of the (c’est / il y a) cleft.
3.  Syntactic structure of il y a clefts (WIP)
4. Conclusion
1. INFORMATION STRUCTURE
•  Corpus analysis of il y a clefts
•  New IS-typology of il y a clefts and c’est clefts
Used corpora
1.  Le Monde 1998
o 
o 
Journalistic texts: formal written French
27 million words
2.  Yahoo Questions and Answers 2006-2009
o 
Internet discussion forum: informal written French
o 
French part: 6.1 million words
(20.000 questions, 140.000 answers)
o 
3.  Discours sur la Ville / CFPP 2000
o 
o 
Transcriptions of spoken interviews
550.000 words (38,9 hours)
Corpus data: general overview
il y a + [NP +
RRC]
il y a cleft
Ambiguous
Le Monde
(formal written)
Yahoo
(informal
written)
CFPP2000
(spoken)
Total
285
1147
341
1773
71
BUT: 63 cases
(89%) in citations
of spoken French
266
235
572
26
22
43
91
•  Total of 572 il y a clefts in the three corpora => analysis of IS
IS-type 1: all focus il y a clefts
(4)
All-focus il y a cleft
Je fais un rêve bizarre depuis quelques jours, (…) subitement je
vois une lumière blanche à la surface de l'eau et y'a une main
qui me saisit par le cou et qui me relève. (Yahoo 4810)
‘I have this recurrent dream since a couple of days (…) Suddenly
I see a white light above the water and there’s a hand that grabs
my throat and that lifts me up.’
•  The existence of a hand and the fact that it will grab the person’s throat
≠ presupposed/given in the context, BUT new information
=> CE + CRC = new information focus
IS-type 1: all focus il y a clefts
(4)
All-focus il y a cleft
Je fais un rêve bizarre depuis quelques jours, (…) subitement je
vois une lumière blanche à la surface de l'eau et y'a une main
qui me saisit par le cou et qui me relève. (Yahoo 4810)
‘I have this recurrent dream since a couple of days (…) Suddenly
I see a white light above the water and there’s a hand that grabs
my throat and that lifts me up.’
•  The existence of a hand and the fact that it will grab the person’s throat
≠ presupposed/given in the context, BUT new information
=> CE + CRC = new information focus
•  ALL-FOCUS il y a cleft
(= only type that has been mentioned in the literature on French,
cf. Lambrecht etc.)
IS-type 2: focus-background il y a clefts
(5)
Focus–Background il y a cleft
Q: Quelle est votre meilleure série du moment?
‘What’s your favorite TV show right now?’
A: “How I Met Your Mother" c'est génial, y'a aussi "Lost" qui est
bien. (Yahoo 3587)
“How I Met Your Mother” is great, there’s also “Lost” that is
good.
•  CRC qui est bien = presupposed / discourse-GIVEN
•  CE “Lost” = new Information Focus
IS-type 2: focus-background il y a clefts
(5)
Focus–Background il y a cleft
Q: Quelle est votre meilleure série du moment?
‘What’s your favorite TV show right now?’
A: “How I Met Your Mother" c'est génial, y'a aussi "Lost" qui est
bien. (Yahoo 3587)
“How I Met Your Mother” is great, there’s also “Lost” that is
good.
•  CRC qui est bien = presupposed / discourse-GIVEN
•  CE “Lost” = new Information Focus
•  Focus-Background il y a cleft (not mentioned in literature on French)
•  Consequence: il y a clefts are not always all-focus!
cf. Davidse [1999/2000/2014]: existence of English FocusBackground there clefts.
IS-type 3: contrastive given-new il y a clefts
(6)
Contrastive Given-New il y a cleft
Q: Atterissage de l'airbus à New-York? [lien] Le co-pilote n'etait
t- il pas un arabe(lol) et traiter les arabes de terroriste.
‘Landing of the airbus in NY? [link] Wasn’t the co-pilot an Arab
(lol), and to treat Arabs like terrorists!’
A: il y'a un pilote qui arrive a poser un avion sur l'eau et évite la
perte de 160 personne, et d'un autre coté il y'a toi qui n'arrive
même pas a faire une phrase compréhensible !!! (Yahoo 252)
‘There’s a pilot who manages to land a plane on the water and
avoid the deaths of 160 people, and on the other hand there’s
you who can’t even write a comprehensible sentence!!!’
•  CE toi = discourse-GIVEN (speaker & hearer pronouns always
available in discourse) + contrastive (contrastive topic?)
•  CRC = new (contrastive) information
Corpus data: three IS-types of il y a clefts
Le Monde
(formal written)
Yahoo
(informal written)
CFPP2000
(spoken)
Type of il y a cleft
N
%
N
%
N
%
All-Focus
63
88.7%
183
68.8%
175
74.5%
Focus-Background
5
7.0%
70
26.3%
58
24.7%
Contrastive given –
new
3
4,2%
2
0.8%
1
0.04%
Ambiguous
0
0.00%
7
2.6%
1
0.04%
Total
71
100%
266
100%
235
100%
Conclusion: 3 IS-types of il y a clefts
Clefted Element
FOCUS/NEW
il y a cleft
FOCUS
DISCOURSEGIVEN
(+contrastive)
Cleft Relative
Clause
FOCUS/NEW
Designation
Presentational, all-focus,
all-new
BACKGROUND Focus-Background,
specificational
FOCUS/NEW
(+contrastive)
‘Contrastive Given-New’
A new typology of il y a / c’est clefts
Clefted Element
FOCUS/NEW
il y a cleft
FOCUS
FOCUS/NEW
Designation
Presentational, all-focus,
all-new
BACKGROUND Focus-Background,
specificational
DISCOURSEGIVEN
(+contrastive)
FOCUS/NEW
(+contrastive)
‘Contrastive Given-New’
FOCUS/NEW
FOCUS/NEW
All-focus
FOCUS
c'est cleft
Cleft Relative
Clause
DISCOURSEGIVEN
BACKGROUND Specificational,
Focus-Background
FOCUS/NEW
Informativepresuppositional
(anaphoric) clefts
Focus-background c'est clefts
(7)
Focus-Background c’est cleft
Q: Qui chante?
‘Who is singing?’
A: C’est Louis qui chante.
‘It’s Louis who is singing.’
•  CRC qui chante = presupposed / discourse-GIVEN
•  CE Louis = NEW Information Focus
On French: Katz 2000, Clech-Darbon et al 1999, Rialland et al 2002, Doetjes et al
2004
On English: e.g. Declerck 1988, Prince 1978, Higgins 1979, Heycock & Kroch
1999, Davidse 2000
Given-new c’est clefts
(8)
Given-New c’est cleft
[tourist text about Berlin] C’est dans la section est, autrefois
la partie soviétique, que j’ai été le plus charmé (…). De plus, c’est
là que vous décèlerez les principaux clubs, bars et discothèques.
(www)
It’s in the Eastern part, formerly the Soviet part, that I was most
charmed. (...) Moreover, it’s there that you will find the main
clubs, bars and discotheques.
•  CE là ‘there’ = dans la section est à discourse-GIVEN
•  CRC = NEW information
On French: Doetjes et al 2004, Mertens 2008/2012, Blanche-Benveniste 2006,
Clech-Darbon, Rebuschi & Rialland 1999, Dufter 2008
On English: e.g. Prince 1978, Hedberg 1990, Delin & Oberlander 2005, Den
Dikken 2013, Declerck 1988
All-focus c’est cleft
(9)
All-focus c’est cleft
Sous le sommet en surplomb d'une falaise de la côte sud
de l'Angleterre, (…), un peintre amateur attend, rêvant de
pouvoir dessiner un corbeau d'une espèce rare. Mais soudain
c'est une jeune femme qui tombe dans le vide sous ses yeux
‘Under the top of a cliff on the south coast of England, an
amateur painter waits, dreaming of being able to draw a rare
raven. But suddenly it’s a young woman that falls into the depths
under his eyes.’ (www)
•  Existence of a young woman and the fact that she will fall down the
cliff ≠ given in prior context BUT new information
=> CE + CRC = new info focus (all-new event)
On French: Doetjes et al 2004, Katz 2000
On English: Declerck 1988
Conclusion
•  In linguistic literature: il y a clefts only have all-new IS-configuration
o 
o 
BUT corpus research: also focus-background & (contrastive) givennew
Focus-background relatively frequent in spoken and informal
written corpus (24 – 26% of occurrences of il y a clefts)
Conclusion
•  In linguistic literature: il y a clefts only have all-new IS-configuration
o 
o 
BUT corpus research: also focus-background & (contrastive) givennew
Focus-background relatively frequent in spoken and informal
written corpus (24 – 26% of occurrences of il y a clefts)
•  In linguistic literature: c’est-clefts can have three IS-configurations
o 
Prototypically: focus-background
o 
Dufter (2008): focus-background and given-new more or less same
frequency
Conclusion
•  In linguistic literature: il y a clefts only have all-new IS-configuration
o 
o 
BUT corpus research: also focus-background & (contrastive) givennew
Focus-background relatively frequent in spoken and informal
written corpus (24 – 26% of occurrences of il y a clefts)
•  In linguistic literature: c’est-clefts can have three IS-configurations
o 
Prototypically: focus-background
o 
Dufter (2008): focus-background and given-new more or less same
frequency
•  Conclusion: both il y a clefts and c’est clefts have three types of ISconfigurations (all-new, focus-background, given-new), but with
different ‘specialization’
2. EXISTENTIAL
PRESUPPOSITION
•  Background
•  Goal
•  IS of clefts ~ presence/absence of existential presupposition
Background
•  Existential presupposition in it clefts: “presumption on the part of the
speaker that the property denoted by the cleft clause is true of some
individual”, i.e. (10a) presupposes “that there is someone that Mary
saw.” (Reeve 2010:33)
[cf. also Prince 1978, Hedberg 2000/2013, Delin 1992, Delin &
Oberlander 2000, É. Kiss 2009, Reeve 2012, Haegeman,
Meinunger & Vercauteren 2014]
(10)
a. It was JOHN that Mary saw. (Reeve 2010:33)
Background
•  Existential presupposition in it clefts: “presumption on the part of the
speaker that the property denoted by the cleft clause is true of some
individual”, i.e. (10a) presupposes “that there is someone that Mary
saw.” (Reeve 2010:33)
[cf. also Prince 1978, Hedberg 2000/2013, Delin 1992, Delin &
Oberlander 2000, É. Kiss 2009, Reeve 2012, Haegeman,
Meinunger & Vercauteren 2014]
(10)
a. It was JOHN that Mary saw. (Reeve 2010:33)
•  it clefts (10a) and specificational sentences (10b) obligatorily carry
existential presupposition, but regular non-copular sentences (10c)
don’t :
(10)
b. The one that Mary saw was JOHN.
c. Mary saw John.
(Reeve 2010:17)
Our goal
•  Existential presupposition ≠ general property of all it clefts
•  BUT: presence/absence of existential presupposition ~ specific type of
IS configuration:
o 
Present in Focus-Background (c’est / il y a) clefts
o 
Absent in All-Focus & Given-New (c’est / il y a) clefts
Focus-Background clefts: existential presupposition
(11)
Focus-Background il y a cleft
[- What’s your favorite TV-show right now?]
- Il y a “Lost” qui est bien.
‘There is “Lost” that is good.’
à at least one TV show is good = presupposed
(12)
Focus-Background c’est cleft
[- Who is singing?]
- C’est Louis qui chante.
‘It’s Louis who’s singing.’
à a person is singing = presupposed
All-focus clefts: NO existential presupposition
(13)
All-focus il y a cleft
[What’s happening?]
Il y a le facteur qui arrive. ‘There’s the mailman who is coming.’
à at least one person is coming ≠ presupposed
(14)
All-focus c’est cleft
[A painter sitting near a cliff is dreaming of drawing a bird.]
Soudain c’est une jeune femme qui tombe dans le vide.
‘Suddenly it’s a young woman who falls into the depths.’
à a person falls into the depths ≠ presupposed
•  In all-focus sentences, nothing is presupposed, witness the fact that
they can appear in out-of-the-blue contexts.
(cf. Cruschina 2012)
Given - new clefts: NO existential presupposition
(15)
Given-New il y a cleft (contrastive)
[A pilot manages to save many lives, and]
il y'a toi qui n'arrive même pas a faire une phrase compréhensible!!!
‘There’s you who can’t even write a comprehensible sentence!!!’
à at least one person cannot write a comprehensible sentence ≠
presupposed
(16)
Given-New c’est cleft
[I was most charmed by the Eastern part of Berlin.]
C’est là que vous décèlerez les principaux clubs.
‘It’s there that you will find the main clubs,’
à there exists a location where you can find the main clubs ≠ presupposed
Summary
Presence of the Existential Presupposition
Il y a cleft
C’est cleft
Focus-Background
√
√
All-Focus
*
*
Given-New
*
*
•  Existential Presupposition
o 
o 
o 
does not hold for all c’est clefts
also holds for some il y a clefts
correlates with IS of clefts: present in Focus-Background clefts, but
not in other two types
3. SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE
OF IL Y A CLEFTS
Background
•  Questions concerning syntax of it-clefts (not yet addressed for il y
a clefts)
(i) Syntactic status of CRC with respect to the CE:
o  Kind of Relative Clause (Reeve 2011, Hedberg 1990, …)
o  Small Clause analysis (Den Dikken 2013, … ) or copula selects
reduced CP (Belletti 2008/2013)
è  Not in this presentation (see talk Jan Casalicchio)
(ii) Extraposition of the CRC
(iii) Position of it, of verb is & of CE
In what follows
•  « High » analysis for it-clefts
•  il y a clefts: NO high analysis
•  « Low » analysis for it-clefts
•  il y a clefts: some elements in favor of low analysis (WIP)
HIGH ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS - i
[a.o. Meinunger 1997/1998; Frascarelli & Ramaglia 2009/2013;
Sleeman 2011]
•  PRINCIPLES
o 
o 
CE located in FocP in Left Periphery
assumption that CE has same “marked” interpretation as focusmoved constituents in e.g. Italian and Spanish
(see Jiménez-Fernández & Camacho Taboada 2014, Leonetti &
Escandell Vidal 2009 on focus-moved constituents)
c’est / it is
•  can be considered a focus particle (Klein 2012)
•  OR occupy TopP position
[GroundP it is [FocP the dog [TopP that Mary saw [IP .. ]]]]
CE
HIGH ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS - ii
• 
PROBLEMS
HIGH ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS - ii
• 
PROBLEMS
o  it is ≠ referential, ≠ necessarily mentioned/given in context
=> hard to be conceived of as a topic or ground
HIGH ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS - ii
• 
PROBLEMS
o  it is ≠ referential, ≠ necessarily mentioned/given in context
=> hard to be conceived of as a topic or ground
o  Formal variants of it is (past, future tense; modal aux, etc.)
=> it is ≠ fully grammaticalized focus particle
HIGH ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS - ii
• 
PROBLEMS
o  it is ≠ referential, ≠ necessarily mentioned/given in context
=> hard to be conceived of as a topic or ground
o  Formal variants of it is (past, future tense; modal aux, etc.)
=> it is ≠ fully grammaticalized focus particle
o  CE does NOT have exactly the same interpretation as focus-moved
constituents:
§  not always contrastive or “marked”
§  can also be narrow new information focus or even given/anaphoric/
topical (see a.o. Belletti 2013)
HIGH ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS - ii
• 
PROBLEMS
o  it is ≠ referential, ≠ necessarily mentioned/given in context
=> hard to be conceived of as a topic or ground
o  Formal variants of it is (past, future tense; modal aux, etc.)
=> it is ≠ fully grammaticalized focus particle
o  CE does NOT have exactly the same interpretation as focus-moved
constituents:
§  not always contrastive or “marked”
§  can also be narrow new information focus or even given/anaphoric/
topical (see a.o. Belletti 2013)
o  CE of it cleft can undergo wh-movement (17a) and focus fronting (17b)
=> gap (original position of CE) ≠ in high FocP
(17)
a. Who was is ___ that you were going to invite?
(Haegeman, Meinunger & Vercauteren 2014:100)
b. JOHN it was __ that Mary saw. (Reeve 2012:56)
IL Y A CLEFTS >< HIGH ANALYSIS - i
IL Y A CLEFTS >< HIGH ANALYSIS - i
•  Il y a ≠ referential, ≠ necessarily given => no topic, no ground
IL Y A CLEFTS >< HIGH ANALYSIS - i
•  Il y a ≠ referential, ≠ necessarily given => no topic, no ground
•  Il y a formal variation (e.g. subjunctive, (im)perfective past, future and
modal aux) => ≠ completely grammaticalized focus particle (Klein 2012)
IL Y A CLEFTS >< HIGH ANALYSIS - i
•  Il y a ≠ referential, ≠ necessarily given => no topic, no ground
•  Il y a formal variation (e.g. subjunctive, (im)perfective past, future and
modal aux) => ≠ completely grammaticalized focus particle (Klein 2012)
•  CE can be wh-moved (focus-movement very limited in French, cf.
Lahousse 2014)
(18)
Q: Qui y
a-t-il
who there have.EXPL
___ qui joue
du piano?
___ who is.playing of.the piano
~ ‘Who is there ___ who’s playing the piano?’
A: Il
y
a mon frère qui
joue
du piano.
EXPL there has my brother who is.playing of.the piano
‘There is my brother who is playing the piano.’ (Fuchs 2009:5)
IL Y A CLEFTS >< HIGH ANALYSIS - ii
•  Constructions involving elements moved to high Left Periphery: usually
intervention effects with operator movement in temporal clauses
(Haegeman & Ürögdi 2010; Lahousse, Laenzlinger & Soare 2014)
(19)
*When that film I went to see, I remembered my first trip to Tokyo.
Q
Q
(Haegeman & Ürögdi 2010:112)
IL Y A CLEFTS >< HIGH ANALYSIS - ii
•  Constructions involving elements moved to high Left Periphery: usually
intervention effects with operator movement in temporal clauses
(Haegeman & Ürögdi 2010; Lahousse, Laenzlinger & Soare 2014)
(19)
*When that film I went to see, I remembered my first trip to Tokyo.
Q
Q
(Haegeman & Ürögdi 2010:112)
BUT: il y a clefts possible in temporal clauses à no intervention effects
(20)
… quand il y a une personnalité importante qui meurt
(CFPP 12ième Rosier)
… when there’s a prominent figure who dies.
LOW ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS – TAKE I
[a.o. Reeve 2010/2011/2012; Clech-Darbon, Rebuschi & Rialland 1999; Belletti
2009/2011/2012/2013/to appear; Hedberg 2000; Haegeman, Meinunger & Vercauteren
2014a/b; Lahousse, Laenzlinger & Soare 2014]
PRINCIPLES
•  [SpecIP it [I° is [VP… ]]]
•  CE is in a ‘low position’ (see below)
•  extraposition of CRC
IL Y A CLEFTS: LOW ANALYSIS – TAKE I - i
POSITION OF EXPLETIVE IL ~ other clitic subjects in French
•  besides other clitics (such as y in il y a), nothing can appear between il
and a ~ other pronominal subjects in French
(21)
* il tout à coup y a une bombe qui éclate…
* it suddenly there has a bomb that explodes
•  In questions: il behaves just as other clitic subjects in French
(22)
Q: Qui y
a-t-il
who there have.EXPL
___ qui joue
du piano?
___ who is.playing of.the piano
=> expletive il occupies SpecIP, where it satisfies EPP, just as other
subjects
IL Y A CLEFTS: LOW ANALYSIS – TAKE I - ii
POSITION OF INFLECTED VERB (Y) A IN IL Y A ~ other inflected Vs
•  Same position with respect to (high and low) adverbs
(23)
(24)
Et soudain, nous étions très émus. Il y avait tout à coup un récit
bien plus grand que nous qui traversait le récit fantastique qui
nous était familier. (www)
And suddenly, we were very touched. There was suddenly a story
much bigger than us that went through the fantastic story that we
were familiar with.
Vous vous couchez tard le soir ? Il y a probablement un
psychopathe qui sommeille en vous ... (www)
Do you go to sleep late at night? There’s probably a psychopath
dormant in you.
=> a in il y a occupies I° ~ other inflected verbs in French
IL Y A CLEFTS: LOW ANALYSIS – TAKE I - iii
POSITION OF CLEFT RELATIVE CLAUSE: EXTRAPOSITION
( ~ extraposition of CRC in c’est-clefts, Akmajian 1970, Emonds 1976, Smits 1989,
Den Dikken 2013, Reeve 2010, see Hedberg 2000 for an overview)
(25)
a.
b.
(26)
E’ Gianni, oggi, che devo incontrare
(it) is Gianni, today, that I have to meet (Rizzi 2010)
E’ Gianni che devo incontrare oggi.
E’ [FocP Gianni [ che devo incontrare]] oggi
à Extraposition à
E’ [FocP Gianni ___che-clause ] oggi [ che devo incontrare]
(27) y'a toi aujourd'hui qui découvre que tout ça est du blabla! (www)
There’s you today who discovers that all that is nonsense!
LOW ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS – TAKE II - i
POSITION OF THE CE
•  [SpecIP it [I° is [VP… ]]]
•  CE is in a ‘low position’
o 
o 
o 
(28)
Haegeman et al. (2013): not specified which position
Potentially base-generation position for CE?
Belletti (in line with cartographic principles)
“ a clause internal Focus position, surrounded by Topic positions, is
identified in the lower part of the clause » (Belletti 2004)
[IP …verb… [Topic … ]* [Focus … ] [Topic … ]* [vP tverb… ] ]
(Belletti & Shlonsky 1995; Cecchetto 1999 ; Ndayiragije 1999;
Jayaseelan 2001; Belletti 2004/2008/2009)
LOW ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS - TAKE II - ii
•  CE in focus-background clefts
when contrastive: in specFocP in left periphery of CP (clause
selected by copula) (29a)
o  when non-contrastive: in SpecFocP in vP left periphery (29b)
•  CE in given-new clefts = in SpecTopP in vP periphery (29c)
o 
(29) a. CE = narrow contrastive focus (focus-background cleft)
[vP be [CP/FocPcorr/contr Gianni [FinP che [TP tGianni ha parlato]]]]
b. CE = narrow new information focus (focus-background cleft)
[FocP/NewInfo Gianni [vP be [CP [FinP che [TP tGianni ha parlato]]]]]
c. CE = discourse-given (given-new clefts)
[TopP Gianni [vP be [CP [FinP che [TP tGianni ha parlato]]]]]
(adapted from Belletti, 2013/to appear, details omitted)
LOW ANALYSIS FOR IT-CLEFTS – TAKE II - iii
POTENTIAL PROBLEM
•  Movement of the CE to one of these 3 positions is motivated by
discourse-feature of the CE alone
o  BUT: what about all-focus clefts, in which both CE & CRC are focal
(not addressed in Belletti’s analysis)
•  All-focus clefts cannot be distinguished from (non-contrastive)
focus-background clefts on the basis of the IS of the CE alone
•  In all-focus clefts, movement of both parts to a different focusposition is excluded (only one focus-position per periphery, Rizzi
1997)
o  Distinction between CE in low TopP and low FocP on basis of
interpretation only => no independent syntactic confirmation, i.e.
syntactic difference between CE in given-new clefts and in (noncontrastive) focus background clefts
IL Y A CLEFTS: LOW ANALYSIS – TAKE II - i
POSITION OF CLEFTED ELEMENT (CE)
• 
• 
• 
In base generation position?
(until syntactic evidence is found that it is in a low Top of Foc
position)
Remember: in il y a clefts:
i.  CE = focus; CRC = focus
ii.  CE = focus; CRC = background
iii.  CE = given; CRC = new (focus)
Other configurations involving elements in low (base-generation)
position can also have multiple IS-statuses?
~ VS word order in French
IL Y A CLEFTS: LOW ANALYSIS – TAKE II - ii
VS WORD ORDER IN FRENCH (Lahousse 2014)
o  Syntax: postverbal S = in base generation position (see also Costa
2004, Costa & Galves 2002)
(30)
(31)
Ainsi
écrivent tous les grands auteurs
IN-THIS-WAY write
all the big authors
* Ainsi
écrivent les grands auteurs (presque) tous
IN-THIS-WAY write
the big authors
(almost) all
=> No stranding of tous in (31)
=> The postverbal subject did not leave spec,vP
IL Y A CLEFTS: LOW ANALYSIS – TAKE II - iii
VS WORD ORDER IN FRENCH (Lahousse 2014)
o  Information structure:
i. 
V = background, S = focus
ii. 
V = focus, S = focus (all-focus ‘thetic’ VS)
iii.  V = background, S = background
à 
Cases i. and ii. cannot be distinguished on the basis of the IS of
the S alone
Cases ii. and iii.: both V and S share specific discourse-feature
⇒  no motivation for movement of CE alone to specific projection
à 
4. CONCLUSION
Conclusion
•  INFO STRUCTURE: both il y a clefts and c’est clefts can express 3 IS
configurations :
o  All-Focus
o  Focus–Background
o  (Contrastive) discourse-Given–New
•  IS ~ EXISTENTIAL PRESUPPOSITION:
o 
o 
Only Focus–Background (c’est / il y a) clefts carry EP
All-Focus / Given-New (c’est / il y a) clefts do NOT carry EP
•  SYNTAX:
o 
o 
o 
High analysis of it-clefts does not apply to il y a clefts
Some elements in favor of low analysis (WIP)
CRC = extraposed
Merci!
Obrigadas!
Il y a le café qui nous attend!
There’s the coffee that’s waiting for us!
References
• 
Akmajian, A. (1970). On Deriving Cleft Sentences from Pseudo-Cleft Sentences. Linguistic
Inquiry, 1, 149–168.
• 
Ashby, W. J. (1999). Au sujet de quoi? La fonction du sujet grammatical, du complément
d’objet direct, et de la construction présentative en français parlé. The French Review, 72(3),
481–492.
• 
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2006). Linguistic Analysis of Spoken Language – The Case of
French Language. In Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima, & T. Takagaki (Eds.), Spoken Language
Corpus and Linguistic Informatics (pp. 35–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 
Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The Structure of IP and CP.
The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 2 (pp. 16–51). Oxford: OUP.
• 
Belletti, A. (2009). Answering strategies: New information subjects and the nature of clefts. In
Structures and Strategies. London: Routledge.
• 
• 
Belletti, A. (2008). The CP of clefts. Rivista Di Grammatica Generativa, 33, 191–204.
Belletti, A. (2011). Focus and the predicate of clefts. Paper presented at GIST3: Cartographic
structures and beyond. Workshop at Ghent University, September 2011.
• 
Belletti, A. (2012). Revisiting the CP of clefts. In E. Zimmermann & G. Grewendorf (Eds.),
Discourse and Grammar. From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories. (pp. 91–114). Berlin:
Mouton De Gruyter.
• 
Belletti, A. (2013). The focus map of clefts: Extraposition and Predication. In U. Shlonsky
(Ed.), Where do we go from here? Chapters in syntactic cartography. Oxford: OUP.
• 
Belletti, A., & Shlonsky, U. (1995). The Order of Verbal Complements  : A Comparative Study.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13(3), 489–526.
• 
Bouchard, J., Dupuis, F., & Dufresne, M. (2007). Un processus de focalisation en ancien
français: le développement des clivées. In M. Radisic (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 annual
conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.
• 
Cappeau, P., & Deulofeu, J. (2001). Partition et topicalisation: il y en a “stabilisateur” de sujets
et de topiques indéfinis. Cahiers de Praxématique, 37, 45–82.
• 
Cecchetto, C. (1999). A Comparative Analysis of Left and Right Dislocation in Romance.
Studia Linguistica, 53(1), 40–67.
• 
Choi-Jonin, I., & Lagae, V. (2005). Il y a des gens ils ont mauvais caractère. A propos du rôle
de il y a. In A. Murguía (Ed.), Sens et références. Mélanges Georges Kleiber. (pp. 39–66).
Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
• 
Clech-Darbon, A., Rebuschi, G., & Rialland, A. (1999). Are there cleft sentences in French? In
L. Tuller & G. Rebuschi (Eds.), The grammar of focus (pp. 83–118). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• 
• 
Collins, P. C. (1991). Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.
Costa, J., & Galves, C. (2002). External subjects in two varieties of Portuguese. In B. et Al
(Ed.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory (pp. 109–125). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
• 
Costa, J. (2004). Subjects in Spec,vP: locality and agree. In A. Castro, M. Ferreira, V.
Hacquard, & A. Salanova (Eds.), Op.47: Collected Papers on Romance Syntax. Cambridge:
MITWPL.
• 
Cruschina, S. (2012). Focus in Existential Sentences. In V. Bianchi & C. Chesi (Eds.), Enjoy
Linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 77–107).
Siena: CISCL Press.
• 
Cruschina, S. (2014). Some notes on clefting and fronting. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann,
& S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Adriana
Belletti. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 
Davidse, K. (1999). The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential
constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(3), 203–250.
• 
• 
• 
Davidse, K. (2000). A constructional approach to clefts. Linguistics, 38(6), 1101–1131.
• 
• 
Davidse, K. (2014). On specificational there-clefts (pp. 1–34).
Declerck, R. (1988). Studies on copular sentences, cleſts and pseudo-cleſts. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Delin, J. (1992). Properties of it-cleft presuppositions. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 289–306.
Delin, J., & Oberlander, J. (2005). Cleft constructions in context: Some Suggestions for
research methodology. Ms, University of Stirling.
• 
Den Dikken, M. (2013). Predication and specification in the syntax of cleft sentences. In K.
Hartmann & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Cleft structures (pp. 35–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 
Doetjes, J., Rebuschi, G., & Rialland, A. (2004). Cleft Sentences. In F. Corblin & H. De
Swart (Eds.), Handbook of French Semantics (pp. 529–552). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• 
Dufter, A. (2008). On explaining the rise of c’est-clefts in French. In U. Detges & R.
Waltereit (Eds.), The paradox of grammatical change: perspectives from Romance (pp.
31–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 
Dufter, A. (2009a). Beyond focus marking: Fine-tuning the evolution of cleft types from
Latin to Modern French, (2), 1–12.
• 
Dufter, A. (2009b). Clefting and Discourse organization - comparing Germanic and Romance.
In A. Dufter & D. Jacob (Eds.), Focus and Background in Romance languages (pp. 83–121).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• 
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax. 1976. New York:
Academic Press.
• 
É. Kiss, K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74(2), 245–
273.
• 
É. Kiss, K. (2009). Deriving the properties of structural focus. In Proceedings of CIL 18 (Vol.
3).
• 
• 
Frascarelli, M., & Ramaglia, F. (2009). Pseudo cleft constructions at the interfaces. Lingbuzz.
Frascarelli, M., & Ramaglia, F. (2013). (Pseudo)clefts at the syntax–prosody–discourse
interface. In T. Veenstra, K. Hartmann, & M. Zimmerman (Eds.), The structure of clefts (pp.
97–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 
Fuchs, C. (2009). L’ambiguïté  : du fait de langue aux stratégies interlocutives. Revue Tranel
(Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique), 50, 5–18.
• 
Giry-Schneider, J. (1988). L’interprétation événementielle des phrases en il y a. Lingvisticae
Investigationes, 12(1), 85–100.
• 
Haegeman, L., Meinunger, A., & Vercauteren, A. (2014a). Against the matrix left peripheral
analysis of English it-clefts. In K. Lahousse & S. Marzo (Eds.), Romance Languages and
Linguistic Theory 2012: Selected papers from “Going Romance” Leuven 2012 (pp. 91–108).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 
Haegeman, L., Meinunger, A., & Vercauteren, A. (2014b). The architecture of it clefts.
Journal of Linguistics, 50(2), 269–296.
• 
Haegeman, L., & Ürögdi, B. (2010). Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement
account. Theoretical Linguistics, 36(2-3), 111–152.
• 
Hedberg, N. (1990). Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English. PhD
Dissertation. University of Minnesota.
• 
• 
Hedberg, N. (2000). The Referential Status of Clefts. Language, 76(4), 891–920.
Hedberg, N. (2013). Multiple focus and cleft sentences. In K. Hartmann & T. Veenstra
(Eds.), Cleft Structures (pp. 227–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 
Heycock, C., & Kroch, A. (1999). Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF
interface level. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(3), 365–397.
• 
• 
Higgins, F. R. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.
Hobæk Haff, M. (2006). La construction clivée en c’est … qui/que – étude contrastive
français- norvégien. In M. Olsen & E. H. Swiatek (Eds.), XVI Congreso de Romanistas
Escandinavos / XVIe Congrès des Romanistes Scandinaves / XVI Congresso dei
Romanisti Scandinavi / XVI Congresso dos Romanistas Escandinavos. Department of
Language and Culture, Roskilde University.
• 
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001). IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica, 55, 33–
75.
• 
Jiménez Fernández, A. L., & Camacho Taboada, V. (2014). Focus Fronting and Root
Phenomena in Spanish and English. In Language Use and Linguistic Structure (pp. 41 –
60).
• 
Katz, S. L. (2000). A functional approach to the teaching of the French c’est-cleft. French
Review, 74(2), 248–262.
• 
Klein, W. (2012). The Information Structure of French. In M. Krifka & R. Musan (Eds.), The
Expression of Information Structure (pp. 95–126). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
• 
Lahousse, K., Laenzlinger, C., & Soare, G. (2014). Contrast and intervention at the
periphery. Lingua, 143, 56–85.
• 
Lahousse, K. (2014). Low sentence structure in French  : the syntax-information structure
interface in VS word order in French. In prep.
• 
Lambrecht, K. (1988). Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In Clause
combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 135–179). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
• 
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental
representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: CUP.
• 
Lambrecht, K. (2000). When subjects behave like objects: a markedness analysis of
sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language, 24(3), 611–682.
• 
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3),
463–516.
• 
Léard, J.-M. (1992). Les gallicismes. Étude syntaxique et sémantique. Paris-Louvain:
Duculot.
• 
Leonetti, M., & Vidal, M. V. E. (2009). Fronting and Verum-Focus in Spanish. In A. Dufter &
D. Jacob (Eds.), Focus and Background in Romance Languages (pp. 155–204). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
• 
Meinunger, A. (1997). The Structure of Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Sentences. Texas Linguistic
Forum, 38, 235–246.
• 
Meinunger, A. (1998). A monoclausal approach to cleft and pseudo-cleft sentences. ZAS
Papers in Linguistics, 10, 89–105.
• 
Mertens, P. (2008). Syntaxe, prosodie et structure informationnelle  : une approche
prédictive pour l’analyse de l'intonation dans le discours. Travaux de Linguistique, 56(1),
87–124.
• 
Mertens, P. (2012). La prosodie des clivées. In S. Caddéo, M.-N. Roubaud, M. Rouquier, &
F. Sabio (Eds.), Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste (pp. 127–139). Aix-enProvence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.
• 
Ndayiragije, J. (1999). Checking economy. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 399–
444.
• 
Prince, E. F. (1978). A Comparison of Wh-Clefts and it-Clefts in Discourse. Language, 54(4),
883–906.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Reeve, M. (2010). Clefts. PhD Dissertation. University College London.
• 
Reeve, M. (2011). The syntactic structure of English Clefts. Lingua, 121, 142–171.
Reeve, M. (2012). Clefts and their relatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rialland, A., Rebuschi, G., & Doetjes, J. (2002). What is Focused in C’est XP qui/que Cleft
Sentences in French  ? In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Prosody,
11-13 April 2002 (pp. 595–598).
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of
grammar (pp. 289–330). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• 
Roggia, C. (2008). Frasi scisse in italiano e in francese orale: evidenze dal C-ORALROM. Cuadernos de Filologìa Italiana, 15, 9–29.
• 
Sleeman, P. (2011). Quantifier-focalization in French and Italian. Paper Presented at
Department of Linguistics, KU Leuven, 21.03.2011.
• 
Smits, R. (1989). Eurogrammar. The relative and cleft constructions in the Germanic and
Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
• 
• 
Verwimp, L. (2013). Les clivées en il y a. MA thesis. KU Leuven.
Willems, D., & Meulleman, M. (2010). “Il y des gens ils viennent acheter des aspirines
pour faire de l’eau gazeuse”. Sur les raisons d’être des structures parataxiques en il y a.
In M.-J. Béguelin, M. Avanzi, & G. Corminboeuf (Eds.), La parataxe. Tome 2: structures,
marquages et exploitations discursives (pp. 167–184). Bern: Peter Lang.
Corpus data: frequency
il y a cleft
occurrences
Word count in
corpus
Le Monde
(formal written)
Yahoo
(informal written)
CFPP2000
(spoken)
71
266
235
27 million
6.1 million
550.000
2,63 / million
43,61 / million
427,27 / million
Frequency
(occurrences/
words in corpus)