Clefts and their Relatives.:
Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restri...
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Elektronisch E-Book |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Amsterdam/Philadelphia :
John Benjamins Pub. Co.,
2012.
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today.
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | DE-862 DE-863 |
| Zusammenfassung: | Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restrictive relative clause) must be reformulated such that they account for the apparent compositionality of DP-internal modification whilst also permitting 'discontinuous' modification of the type which is independently needed for constructions such as relative clause extraposition. The empirical focus. |
| Beschreibung: | 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause. |
| Beschreibung: | 1 online resource (237 pages) |
| Bibliographie: | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
| ISBN: | 9789027274601 9027274606 9789027255686 9027255687 1280676906 9781280676901 9786613653833 6613653837 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000cam a2200000Mu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ZDB-4-EBA-ocn794328706 | ||
| 003 | OCoLC | ||
| 005 | 20250103110447.0 | ||
| 006 | m o d | ||
| 007 | cr |n|---||||| | ||
| 008 | 120528s2012 pau ob 001 0 eng d | ||
| 010 | |z 2012003363 | ||
| 040 | |a EBLCP |b eng |e pn |c EBLCP |d OCLCQ |d N$T |d IDEBK |d YDXCP |d OCLCQ |d OCLCF |d OCLCQ |d CDX |d E7B |d OCLCQ |d LOA |d OCLCQ |d AGLDB |d MOR |d PIFAG |d ZCU |d OCLCQ |d MERUC |d OCLCQ |d U3W |d UUM |d STF |d WRM |d VNS |d VTS |d NRAMU |d ICG |d INT |d VT2 |d AU@ |d OCLCQ |d WYU |d DKC |d OCLCQ |d M8D |d UKAHL |d OCLCQ |d AJS |d UKCRE |d OCLCO |d OCLCQ |d QGK |d OCLCO |d OCLCL |d OCLCQ | ||
| 066 | |c (S | ||
| 019 | |a 794903814 |a 796785331 |a 960201042 |a 988536540 |a 992021224 |a 1037797859 |a 1038616934 |a 1045515753 |a 1055364080 |a 1066598172 |a 1081222132 |a 1087373030 |a 1124324601 |a 1137108438 |a 1153008063 |a 1259070118 |a 1264907040 |a 1297218035 |a 1297474704 | ||
| 020 | |a 9789027274601 |q (electronic bk.) | ||
| 020 | |a 9027274606 |q (electronic bk.) | ||
| 020 | |a 9789027255686 |q (Cloth) | ||
| 020 | |a 9027255687 |q (Cloth) | ||
| 020 | |a 1280676906 | ||
| 020 | |a 9781280676901 | ||
| 020 | |a 9786613653833 | ||
| 020 | |a 6613653837 | ||
| 024 | 8 | |a 9786613653833 | |
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)794328706 |z (OCoLC)794903814 |z (OCoLC)796785331 |z (OCoLC)960201042 |z (OCoLC)988536540 |z (OCoLC)992021224 |z (OCoLC)1037797859 |z (OCoLC)1038616934 |z (OCoLC)1045515753 |z (OCoLC)1055364080 |z (OCoLC)1066598172 |z (OCoLC)1081222132 |z (OCoLC)1087373030 |z (OCoLC)1124324601 |z (OCoLC)1137108438 |z (OCoLC)1153008063 |z (OCoLC)1259070118 |z (OCoLC)1264907040 |z (OCoLC)1297218035 |z (OCoLC)1297474704 | ||
| 037 | |a 365383 |b MIL | ||
| 050 | 4 | |a P295 | |
| 072 | 7 | |a LAN |x 006000 |2 bisacsh | |
| 072 | 7 | |a LAN |x 009060 |2 bisacsh | |
| 072 | 7 | |a CFK |2 bicssc | |
| 082 | 7 | |a 415 |2 23 | |
| 049 | |a MAIN | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Reeve, Matthew. | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Clefts and their Relatives. |
| 260 | |a Amsterdam/Philadelphia : |b John Benjamins Pub. Co., |c 2012. | ||
| 300 | |a 1 online resource (237 pages) | ||
| 336 | |a text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a computer |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a online resource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today ; |v v. 185 | |
| 505 | 0 | |a Clefts and their Relatives; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations used in glosses; Introduction; The syntax of English clefts; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. Proposal; 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it; 2.3.1 Introduction; 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence; 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives.; 2.3.2.2 Control; 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic; 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian; 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French.; 2.3.2.6 Summary. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure; 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions; 2.3.3.3 Summary; 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause; 2.4.1 Introduction; 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause; 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause; 2.4.3.1 Introduction; 2.4.3.2 Locality; 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts; 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator; 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses; 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity; 2.4.3.9 Summary; 2.5. Conclusion; Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and '?-binding'; 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister; 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative; 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions; 3.3 Consequences of the analysis; 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 3.3.2 The uniqueness of?-binding I: restrictions on subjects3.3.3 The uniqueness of?-binding II: the ban on stacking; 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent; 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions; 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects; 3.3.8 Summary; 3.4 T-binding in it-extraposition sentences; 3.4.1 Introduction; 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts; 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive; 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position; 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of?-binding revisited. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent; 3.4.4 Summary; 3.5 Conclusion; Clefts in Slavonic languages; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting; 4.3.1 No relative clause structure; 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause'; 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs; 4.3.4 Connectivity effects; 4.3.5 No predicational clefts; 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP; 4.3.7 Summary; 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection. | |
| 500 | |a 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause. | ||
| 520 | |a Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restrictive relative clause) must be reformulated such that they account for the apparent compositionality of DP-internal modification whilst also permitting 'discontinuous' modification of the type which is independently needed for constructions such as relative clause extraposition. The empirical focus. | ||
| 588 | 0 | |a Print version record. | |
| 504 | |a Includes bibliographical references and index. | ||
| 546 | |a English. | ||
| 650 | 0 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Sentences. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056329 | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Clauses. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056272 | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Syntax. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056338 | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Semantics. |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85119870 | |
| 650 | 2 | |a Semantics |0 https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D012660 | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Phrase (Linguistique) | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Propositions (Linguistique) | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Syntaxe. | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Sémantique. | |
| 650 | 7 | |a semantics. |2 aat | |
| 650 | 7 | |a LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES |x Grammar & Punctuation. |2 bisacsh | |
| 650 | 7 | |a LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES |x Linguistics |x Syntax. |2 bisacsh | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Clauses |2 fast | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Sentences |2 fast | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Syntax |2 fast | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Semantics |2 fast | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i Print version: |a Reeve, Matthew. |t Clefts and their Relatives. |d Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, ©2012 |z 9789027255686 |
| 830 | 0 | |a Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. | |
| 966 | 4 | 0 | |l DE-862 |p ZDB-4-EBA |q FWS_PDA_EBA |u https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=457444 |3 Volltext |
| 966 | 4 | 0 | |l DE-863 |p ZDB-4-EBA |q FWS_PDA_EBA |u https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=457444 |3 Volltext |
| 880 | 8 | |6 505-00/(S |a 4.6.3 Applying the θ-binding analysis to Russian clefts -- 4.6.3.1 Problems for compositionality -- 4.6.3.2 Θ-binding of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.6.4 Consequences of the θ-binding analysis -- 4.6.4.1 The interpretative properties of Russian clefts -- 4.6.4.2 'Adjacency' effects -- 4.6.4.3 Apparent cases of non-adjacency -- 4.6.4.4 Why Russian does not have English-style clefts -- 4.6.4.5 Summary -- 4.7 Conclusion -- The syntax of specificational sentences -- 5.1. Introduction -- 5.2. The specificational syntax of clefts -- 5.2.1 Problems for compositionality II -- 5.2.2 Specificational syntax and association with focus -- 5.2.3 The syntax of Eq -- 5.3. Consequences of association with focus -- 5.3.1 Restrictions on the placement of focus -- 5.3.1.1 XP2 must be the focus -- 5.3.1.2 Extraction -- 5.3.1.3 The non-existence of 'inverse' specificational sentences -- 5.3.2 The possibility of multiple foci -- 5.3.3 The impossibility of focus projection -- 5.4. Further consequences of the analysis -- 5.4.1 Extraposition in specificational sentences -- 5.4.2 More on extraction of the post-copular XP -- 5.4.3 The dissociation of specification and θ-binding: The case of Serbo-Croatian -- 5.5. Conclusion -- Conclusion -- References -- Index. | |
| 880 | 0 | |6 505-00/(S |a Clefts and their Relatives -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Dedication page -- Table of contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations used in glosses -- Introduction -- The syntax of English clefts -- 2.1. Introduction -- 2.2. Proposal -- 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it -- 2.3.1 Introduction -- 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence -- 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives. -- 2.3.2.2 Control -- 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic -- 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian -- 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French. -- 2.3.2.6 Summary -- 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences -- 2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure -- 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions -- 2.3.3.3 Summary -- 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause -- 2.4.1 Introduction -- 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause -- 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause -- 2.4.3.1 Introduction -- 2.4.3.2 Locality -- 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts -- 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator -- 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses -- 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure -- 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure -- 2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity -- 2.4.3.9 Summary -- 2.5. Conclusion -- Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses -- 3.2.1 Introduction -- 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and 'θ-binding' -- 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister -- 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative -- 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions -- 3.3 Consequences of the analysis -- 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. | |
| 880 | 8 | |6 505-00/(S |a 3.3.2 The uniqueness of θ-binding I: restrictions on subjects -- 3.3.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding II: the ban on stacking -- 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent -- 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions -- 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects -- 3.3.8 Summary -- 3.4 Θ-binding in it-extraposition sentences -- 3.4.1 Introduction -- 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive -- 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position -- 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding revisited -- 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent -- 3.4.4 Summary -- 3.5 Conclusion -- Clefts in Slavonic languages -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Proposal -- 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting -- 4.3.1 No relative clause structure -- 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs -- 4.3.4 Connectivity effects -- 4.3.5 No predicational clefts -- 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP -- 4.3.7 Summary -- 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection -- 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause -- 4.4.2 The types of adverbs permitted after èto -- 4.4.3 Imperative clefts -- 4.4.4 Clitic-climbing -- 4.4.5 Summary -- 4.5 Consequences of the 'double-subject' structure -- 4.5.1 Introduction -- 4.5.2 Evidence for two IPs -- 4.5.2.1 Sentential vs. constituent negation -- 4.5.2.2 Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian -- 4.5.3 Evidence that èto is a DP specifier -- 4.5.3.1 Èto in 'bare copular sentences' -- 4.5.3.2 The positions of adverbs -- 4.5.3.3 Control complements -- 4.5.4 Summary -- 4.6 Russian clefts as specificational sentences -- 4.6.1 Introduction -- 4.6.2 Previous analyses. | |
| 938 | |a Askews and Holts Library Services |b ASKH |n AH28556021 | ||
| 938 | |a Coutts Information Services |b COUT |n 22583556 |c 99.00 EUR | ||
| 938 | |a EBL - Ebook Library |b EBLB |n EBL921956 | ||
| 938 | |a ebrary |b EBRY |n ebr10565401 | ||
| 938 | |a EBSCOhost |b EBSC |n 457444 | ||
| 938 | |a ProQuest MyiLibrary Digital eBook Collection |b IDEB |n 365383 | ||
| 938 | |a YBP Library Services |b YANK |n 7441753 | ||
| 994 | |a 92 |b GEBAY | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-4-EBA | ||
| 049 | |a DE-862 | ||
| 049 | |a DE-863 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| DE-BY-FWS_katkey | ZDB-4-EBA-ocn794328706 |
|---|---|
| _version_ | 1829094726656065536 |
| adam_text | |
| any_adam_object | |
| author | Reeve, Matthew |
| author_facet | Reeve, Matthew |
| author_role | |
| author_sort | Reeve, Matthew |
| author_variant | m r mr |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | localFWS |
| callnumber-first | P - Language and Literature |
| callnumber-label | P295 |
| callnumber-raw | P295 |
| callnumber-search | P295 |
| callnumber-sort | P 3295 |
| callnumber-subject | P - Philology and Linguistics |
| collection | ZDB-4-EBA |
| contents | Clefts and their Relatives; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations used in glosses; Introduction; The syntax of English clefts; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. Proposal; 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it; 2.3.1 Introduction; 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence; 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives.; 2.3.2.2 Control; 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic; 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian; 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French.; 2.3.2.6 Summary. 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure; 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions; 2.3.3.3 Summary; 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause; 2.4.1 Introduction; 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause; 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause; 2.4.3.1 Introduction; 2.4.3.2 Locality; 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts; 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator; 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses; 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure. 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity; 2.4.3.9 Summary; 2.5. Conclusion; Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and '?-binding'; 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister; 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative; 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions; 3.3 Consequences of the analysis; 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. 3.3.2 The uniqueness of?-binding I: restrictions on subjects3.3.3 The uniqueness of?-binding II: the ban on stacking; 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent; 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions; 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects; 3.3.8 Summary; 3.4 T-binding in it-extraposition sentences; 3.4.1 Introduction; 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts; 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive; 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position; 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of?-binding revisited. 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent; 3.4.4 Summary; 3.5 Conclusion; Clefts in Slavonic languages; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting; 4.3.1 No relative clause structure; 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause'; 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs; 4.3.4 Connectivity effects; 4.3.5 No predicational clefts; 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP; 4.3.7 Summary; 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection. |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)794328706 |
| dewey-full | 415 |
| dewey-hundreds | 400 - Language |
| dewey-ones | 415 - Grammar |
| dewey-raw | 415 |
| dewey-search | 415 |
| dewey-sort | 3415 |
| dewey-tens | 410 - Linguistics |
| discipline | Sprachwissenschaft |
| format | Electronic eBook |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>12629cam a2200925Mu 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ZDB-4-EBA-ocn794328706</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">OCoLC</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20250103110447.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="006">m o d </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr |n|---|||||</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120528s2012 pau ob 001 0 eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="010" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z"> 2012003363</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">EBLCP</subfield><subfield code="b">eng</subfield><subfield code="e">pn</subfield><subfield code="c">EBLCP</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">N$T</subfield><subfield code="d">IDEBK</subfield><subfield code="d">YDXCP</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCF</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">CDX</subfield><subfield code="d">E7B</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">LOA</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">AGLDB</subfield><subfield code="d">MOR</subfield><subfield code="d">PIFAG</subfield><subfield code="d">ZCU</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">MERUC</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">U3W</subfield><subfield code="d">UUM</subfield><subfield code="d">STF</subfield><subfield code="d">WRM</subfield><subfield code="d">VNS</subfield><subfield code="d">VTS</subfield><subfield code="d">NRAMU</subfield><subfield code="d">ICG</subfield><subfield code="d">INT</subfield><subfield code="d">VT2</subfield><subfield code="d">AU@</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">WYU</subfield><subfield code="d">DKC</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">M8D</subfield><subfield code="d">UKAHL</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">AJS</subfield><subfield code="d">UKCRE</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCO</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield><subfield code="d">QGK</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCO</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCL</subfield><subfield code="d">OCLCQ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="066" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="c">(S</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="019" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">794903814</subfield><subfield code="a">796785331</subfield><subfield code="a">960201042</subfield><subfield code="a">988536540</subfield><subfield code="a">992021224</subfield><subfield code="a">1037797859</subfield><subfield code="a">1038616934</subfield><subfield code="a">1045515753</subfield><subfield code="a">1055364080</subfield><subfield code="a">1066598172</subfield><subfield code="a">1081222132</subfield><subfield code="a">1087373030</subfield><subfield code="a">1124324601</subfield><subfield code="a">1137108438</subfield><subfield code="a">1153008063</subfield><subfield code="a">1259070118</subfield><subfield code="a">1264907040</subfield><subfield code="a">1297218035</subfield><subfield code="a">1297474704</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789027274601</subfield><subfield code="q">(electronic bk.)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9027274606</subfield><subfield code="q">(electronic bk.)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789027255686</subfield><subfield code="q">(Cloth)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9027255687</subfield><subfield code="q">(Cloth)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1280676906</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9781280676901</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9786613653833</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6613653837</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="024" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9786613653833</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)794328706</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)794903814</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)796785331</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)960201042</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)988536540</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)992021224</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1037797859</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1038616934</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1045515753</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1055364080</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1066598172</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1081222132</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1087373030</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1124324601</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1137108438</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1153008063</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1259070118</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1264907040</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1297218035</subfield><subfield code="z">(OCoLC)1297474704</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="037" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">365383</subfield><subfield code="b">MIL</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">P295</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="072" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">LAN</subfield><subfield code="x">006000</subfield><subfield code="2">bisacsh</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="072" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">LAN</subfield><subfield code="x">009060</subfield><subfield code="2">bisacsh</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="072" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">CFK</subfield><subfield code="2">bicssc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">415</subfield><subfield code="2">23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">MAIN</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Reeve, Matthew.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Clefts and their Relatives.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amsterdam/Philadelphia :</subfield><subfield code="b">John Benjamins Pub. Co.,</subfield><subfield code="c">2012.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 online resource (237 pages)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">computer</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">online resource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today ;</subfield><subfield code="v">v. 185</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Clefts and their Relatives; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations used in glosses; Introduction; The syntax of English clefts; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. Proposal; 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it; 2.3.1 Introduction; 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence; 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives.; 2.3.2.2 Control; 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic; 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian; 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French.; 2.3.2.6 Summary.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure; 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions; 2.3.3.3 Summary; 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause; 2.4.1 Introduction; 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause; 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause; 2.4.3.1 Introduction; 2.4.3.2 Locality; 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts; 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator; 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses; 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity; 2.4.3.9 Summary; 2.5. Conclusion; Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and '?-binding'; 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister; 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative; 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions; 3.3 Consequences of the analysis; 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3.3.2 The uniqueness of?-binding I: restrictions on subjects3.3.3 The uniqueness of?-binding II: the ban on stacking; 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent; 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions; 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects; 3.3.8 Summary; 3.4 T-binding in it-extraposition sentences; 3.4.1 Introduction; 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts; 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive; 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position; 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of?-binding revisited.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent; 3.4.4 Summary; 3.5 Conclusion; Clefts in Slavonic languages; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting; 4.3.1 No relative clause structure; 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause'; 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs; 4.3.4 Connectivity effects; 4.3.5 No predicational clefts; 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP; 4.3.7 Summary; 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">4.4.1 No copula or relative clause.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restrictive relative clause) must be reformulated such that they account for the apparent compositionality of DP-internal modification whilst also permitting 'discontinuous' modification of the type which is independently needed for constructions such as relative clause extraposition. The empirical focus.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="588" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Print version record.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="504" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Includes bibliographical references and index.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">English.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Grammar, Comparative and general</subfield><subfield code="x">Sentences.</subfield><subfield code="0">http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056329</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Grammar, Comparative and general</subfield><subfield code="x">Clauses.</subfield><subfield code="0">http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056272</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Grammar, Comparative and general</subfield><subfield code="x">Syntax.</subfield><subfield code="0">http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Semantics.</subfield><subfield code="0">http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85119870</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Semantics</subfield><subfield code="0">https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D012660</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="6"><subfield code="a">Phrase (Linguistique)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="6"><subfield code="a">Propositions (Linguistique)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="6"><subfield code="a">Syntaxe.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="6"><subfield code="a">Sémantique.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">semantics.</subfield><subfield code="2">aat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES</subfield><subfield code="x">Grammar & Punctuation.</subfield><subfield code="2">bisacsh</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES</subfield><subfield code="x">Linguistics</subfield><subfield code="x">Syntax.</subfield><subfield code="2">bisacsh</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Grammar, Comparative and general</subfield><subfield code="x">Clauses</subfield><subfield code="2">fast</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Grammar, Comparative and general</subfield><subfield code="x">Sentences</subfield><subfield code="2">fast</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Grammar, Comparative and general</subfield><subfield code="x">Syntax</subfield><subfield code="2">fast</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Semantics</subfield><subfield code="2">fast</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="776" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Print version:</subfield><subfield code="a">Reeve, Matthew.</subfield><subfield code="t">Clefts and their Relatives.</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, ©2012</subfield><subfield code="z">9789027255686</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="966" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="l">DE-862</subfield><subfield code="p">ZDB-4-EBA</subfield><subfield code="q">FWS_PDA_EBA</subfield><subfield code="u">https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=457444</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="966" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="l">DE-863</subfield><subfield code="p">ZDB-4-EBA</subfield><subfield code="q">FWS_PDA_EBA</subfield><subfield code="u">https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=457444</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="880" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="6">505-00/(S</subfield><subfield code="a">4.6.3 Applying the θ-binding analysis to Russian clefts -- 4.6.3.1 Problems for compositionality -- 4.6.3.2 Θ-binding of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.6.4 Consequences of the θ-binding analysis -- 4.6.4.1 The interpretative properties of Russian clefts -- 4.6.4.2 'Adjacency' effects -- 4.6.4.3 Apparent cases of non-adjacency -- 4.6.4.4 Why Russian does not have English-style clefts -- 4.6.4.5 Summary -- 4.7 Conclusion -- The syntax of specificational sentences -- 5.1. Introduction -- 5.2. The specificational syntax of clefts -- 5.2.1 Problems for compositionality II -- 5.2.2 Specificational syntax and association with focus -- 5.2.3 The syntax of Eq -- 5.3. Consequences of association with focus -- 5.3.1 Restrictions on the placement of focus -- 5.3.1.1 XP2 must be the focus -- 5.3.1.2 Extraction -- 5.3.1.3 The non-existence of 'inverse' specificational sentences -- 5.3.2 The possibility of multiple foci -- 5.3.3 The impossibility of focus projection -- 5.4. Further consequences of the analysis -- 5.4.1 Extraposition in specificational sentences -- 5.4.2 More on extraction of the post-copular XP -- 5.4.3 The dissociation of specification and θ-binding: The case of Serbo-Croatian -- 5.5. Conclusion -- Conclusion -- References -- Index.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="880" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="6">505-00/(S</subfield><subfield code="a">Clefts and their Relatives -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Dedication page -- Table of contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations used in glosses -- Introduction -- The syntax of English clefts -- 2.1. Introduction -- 2.2. Proposal -- 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it -- 2.3.1 Introduction -- 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence -- 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives. -- 2.3.2.2 Control -- 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic -- 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian -- 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French. -- 2.3.2.6 Summary -- 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences -- 2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure -- 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions -- 2.3.3.3 Summary -- 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause -- 2.4.1 Introduction -- 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause -- 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause -- 2.4.3.1 Introduction -- 2.4.3.2 Locality -- 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts -- 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator -- 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses -- 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure -- 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure -- 2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity -- 2.4.3.9 Summary -- 2.5. Conclusion -- Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses -- 3.2.1 Introduction -- 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and 'θ-binding' -- 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister -- 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative -- 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions -- 3.3 Consequences of the analysis -- 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="880" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="6">505-00/(S</subfield><subfield code="a">3.3.2 The uniqueness of θ-binding I: restrictions on subjects -- 3.3.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding II: the ban on stacking -- 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent -- 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions -- 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects -- 3.3.8 Summary -- 3.4 Θ-binding in it-extraposition sentences -- 3.4.1 Introduction -- 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive -- 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position -- 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding revisited -- 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent -- 3.4.4 Summary -- 3.5 Conclusion -- Clefts in Slavonic languages -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Proposal -- 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting -- 4.3.1 No relative clause structure -- 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs -- 4.3.4 Connectivity effects -- 4.3.5 No predicational clefts -- 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP -- 4.3.7 Summary -- 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection -- 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause -- 4.4.2 The types of adverbs permitted after èto -- 4.4.3 Imperative clefts -- 4.4.4 Clitic-climbing -- 4.4.5 Summary -- 4.5 Consequences of the 'double-subject' structure -- 4.5.1 Introduction -- 4.5.2 Evidence for two IPs -- 4.5.2.1 Sentential vs. constituent negation -- 4.5.2.2 Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian -- 4.5.3 Evidence that èto is a DP specifier -- 4.5.3.1 Èto in 'bare copular sentences' -- 4.5.3.2 The positions of adverbs -- 4.5.3.3 Control complements -- 4.5.4 Summary -- 4.6 Russian clefts as specificational sentences -- 4.6.1 Introduction -- 4.6.2 Previous analyses.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="938" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Askews and Holts Library Services</subfield><subfield code="b">ASKH</subfield><subfield code="n">AH28556021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="938" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Coutts Information Services</subfield><subfield code="b">COUT</subfield><subfield code="n">22583556</subfield><subfield code="c">99.00 EUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="938" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">EBL - Ebook Library</subfield><subfield code="b">EBLB</subfield><subfield code="n">EBL921956</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="938" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ebrary</subfield><subfield code="b">EBRY</subfield><subfield code="n">ebr10565401</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="938" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">EBSCOhost</subfield><subfield code="b">EBSC</subfield><subfield code="n">457444</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="938" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ProQuest MyiLibrary Digital eBook Collection</subfield><subfield code="b">IDEB</subfield><subfield code="n">365383</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="938" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">YBP Library Services</subfield><subfield code="b">YANK</subfield><subfield code="n">7441753</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="994" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">92</subfield><subfield code="b">GEBAY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-4-EBA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-862</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-863</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | ZDB-4-EBA-ocn794328706 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2025-04-11T08:37:43Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789027274601 9027274606 9789027255686 9027255687 1280676906 9781280676901 9786613653833 6613653837 |
| language | English |
| oclc_num | 794328706 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | MAIN DE-862 DE-BY-FWS DE-863 DE-BY-FWS |
| owner_facet | MAIN DE-862 DE-BY-FWS DE-863 DE-BY-FWS |
| physical | 1 online resource (237 pages) |
| psigel | ZDB-4-EBA FWS_PDA_EBA ZDB-4-EBA |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publishDateSearch | 2012 |
| publishDateSort | 2012 |
| publisher | John Benjamins Pub. Co., |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. |
| series2 | Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today ; |
| spelling | Reeve, Matthew. Clefts and their Relatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2012. 1 online resource (237 pages) text txt rdacontent computer c rdamedia online resource cr rdacarrier Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today ; v. 185 Clefts and their Relatives; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations used in glosses; Introduction; The syntax of English clefts; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. Proposal; 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it; 2.3.1 Introduction; 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence; 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives.; 2.3.2.2 Control; 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic; 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian; 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French.; 2.3.2.6 Summary. 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure; 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions; 2.3.3.3 Summary; 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause; 2.4.1 Introduction; 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause; 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause; 2.4.3.1 Introduction; 2.4.3.2 Locality; 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts; 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator; 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses; 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure. 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity; 2.4.3.9 Summary; 2.5. Conclusion; Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and '?-binding'; 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister; 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative; 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions; 3.3 Consequences of the analysis; 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. 3.3.2 The uniqueness of?-binding I: restrictions on subjects3.3.3 The uniqueness of?-binding II: the ban on stacking; 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent; 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions; 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects; 3.3.8 Summary; 3.4 T-binding in it-extraposition sentences; 3.4.1 Introduction; 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts; 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive; 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position; 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of?-binding revisited. 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent; 3.4.4 Summary; 3.5 Conclusion; Clefts in Slavonic languages; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting; 4.3.1 No relative clause structure; 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause'; 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs; 4.3.4 Connectivity effects; 4.3.5 No predicational clefts; 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP; 4.3.7 Summary; 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection. 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause. Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restrictive relative clause) must be reformulated such that they account for the apparent compositionality of DP-internal modification whilst also permitting 'discontinuous' modification of the type which is independently needed for constructions such as relative clause extraposition. The empirical focus. Print version record. Includes bibliographical references and index. English. Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056329 Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056272 Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056338 Semantics. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85119870 Semantics https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D012660 Phrase (Linguistique) Propositions (Linguistique) Syntaxe. Sémantique. semantics. aat LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Grammar & Punctuation. bisacsh LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Linguistics Syntax. bisacsh Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses fast Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences fast Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax fast Semantics fast Print version: Reeve, Matthew. Clefts and their Relatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, ©2012 9789027255686 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. 505-00/(S 4.6.3 Applying the θ-binding analysis to Russian clefts -- 4.6.3.1 Problems for compositionality -- 4.6.3.2 Θ-binding of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.6.4 Consequences of the θ-binding analysis -- 4.6.4.1 The interpretative properties of Russian clefts -- 4.6.4.2 'Adjacency' effects -- 4.6.4.3 Apparent cases of non-adjacency -- 4.6.4.4 Why Russian does not have English-style clefts -- 4.6.4.5 Summary -- 4.7 Conclusion -- The syntax of specificational sentences -- 5.1. Introduction -- 5.2. The specificational syntax of clefts -- 5.2.1 Problems for compositionality II -- 5.2.2 Specificational syntax and association with focus -- 5.2.3 The syntax of Eq -- 5.3. Consequences of association with focus -- 5.3.1 Restrictions on the placement of focus -- 5.3.1.1 XP2 must be the focus -- 5.3.1.2 Extraction -- 5.3.1.3 The non-existence of 'inverse' specificational sentences -- 5.3.2 The possibility of multiple foci -- 5.3.3 The impossibility of focus projection -- 5.4. Further consequences of the analysis -- 5.4.1 Extraposition in specificational sentences -- 5.4.2 More on extraction of the post-copular XP -- 5.4.3 The dissociation of specification and θ-binding: The case of Serbo-Croatian -- 5.5. Conclusion -- Conclusion -- References -- Index. 505-00/(S Clefts and their Relatives -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Dedication page -- Table of contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations used in glosses -- Introduction -- The syntax of English clefts -- 2.1. Introduction -- 2.2. Proposal -- 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it -- 2.3.1 Introduction -- 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence -- 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives. -- 2.3.2.2 Control -- 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic -- 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian -- 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French. -- 2.3.2.6 Summary -- 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences -- 2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure -- 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions -- 2.3.3.3 Summary -- 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause -- 2.4.1 Introduction -- 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause -- 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause -- 2.4.3.1 Introduction -- 2.4.3.2 Locality -- 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts -- 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator -- 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses -- 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure -- 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure -- 2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity -- 2.4.3.9 Summary -- 2.5. Conclusion -- Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses -- 3.2.1 Introduction -- 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and 'θ-binding' -- 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister -- 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative -- 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions -- 3.3 Consequences of the analysis -- 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. 505-00/(S 3.3.2 The uniqueness of θ-binding I: restrictions on subjects -- 3.3.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding II: the ban on stacking -- 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent -- 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions -- 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects -- 3.3.8 Summary -- 3.4 Θ-binding in it-extraposition sentences -- 3.4.1 Introduction -- 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive -- 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position -- 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding revisited -- 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent -- 3.4.4 Summary -- 3.5 Conclusion -- Clefts in Slavonic languages -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Proposal -- 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting -- 4.3.1 No relative clause structure -- 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs -- 4.3.4 Connectivity effects -- 4.3.5 No predicational clefts -- 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP -- 4.3.7 Summary -- 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection -- 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause -- 4.4.2 The types of adverbs permitted after èto -- 4.4.3 Imperative clefts -- 4.4.4 Clitic-climbing -- 4.4.5 Summary -- 4.5 Consequences of the 'double-subject' structure -- 4.5.1 Introduction -- 4.5.2 Evidence for two IPs -- 4.5.2.1 Sentential vs. constituent negation -- 4.5.2.2 Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian -- 4.5.3 Evidence that èto is a DP specifier -- 4.5.3.1 Èto in 'bare copular sentences' -- 4.5.3.2 The positions of adverbs -- 4.5.3.3 Control complements -- 4.5.4 Summary -- 4.6 Russian clefts as specificational sentences -- 4.6.1 Introduction -- 4.6.2 Previous analyses. |
| spellingShingle | Reeve, Matthew Clefts and their Relatives. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. Clefts and their Relatives; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations used in glosses; Introduction; The syntax of English clefts; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. Proposal; 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it; 2.3.1 Introduction; 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence; 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives.; 2.3.2.2 Control; 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic; 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian; 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French.; 2.3.2.6 Summary. 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure; 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions; 2.3.3.3 Summary; 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause; 2.4.1 Introduction; 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause; 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause; 2.4.3.1 Introduction; 2.4.3.2 Locality; 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts; 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator; 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses; 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure. 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity; 2.4.3.9 Summary; 2.5. Conclusion; Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and '?-binding'; 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister; 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative; 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions; 3.3 Consequences of the analysis; 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. 3.3.2 The uniqueness of?-binding I: restrictions on subjects3.3.3 The uniqueness of?-binding II: the ban on stacking; 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent; 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions; 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects; 3.3.8 Summary; 3.4 T-binding in it-extraposition sentences; 3.4.1 Introduction; 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts; 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive; 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position; 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of?-binding revisited. 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent; 3.4.4 Summary; 3.5 Conclusion; Clefts in Slavonic languages; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting; 4.3.1 No relative clause structure; 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause'; 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs; 4.3.4 Connectivity effects; 4.3.5 No predicational clefts; 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP; 4.3.7 Summary; 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection. Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056329 Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056272 Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056338 Semantics. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85119870 Semantics https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D012660 Phrase (Linguistique) Propositions (Linguistique) Syntaxe. Sémantique. semantics. aat LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Grammar & Punctuation. bisacsh LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Linguistics Syntax. bisacsh Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses fast Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences fast Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax fast Semantics fast |
| subject_GND | http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056329 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056272 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056338 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85119870 https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D012660 |
| title | Clefts and their Relatives. |
| title_auth | Clefts and their Relatives. |
| title_exact_search | Clefts and their Relatives. |
| title_full | Clefts and their Relatives. |
| title_fullStr | Clefts and their Relatives. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clefts and their Relatives. |
| title_short | Clefts and their Relatives. |
| title_sort | clefts and their relatives |
| topic | Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056329 Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056272 Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85056338 Semantics. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85119870 Semantics https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D012660 Phrase (Linguistique) Propositions (Linguistique) Syntaxe. Sémantique. semantics. aat LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Grammar & Punctuation. bisacsh LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Linguistics Syntax. bisacsh Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses fast Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences fast Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax fast Semantics fast |
| topic_facet | Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences. Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses. Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax. Semantics. Semantics Phrase (Linguistique) Propositions (Linguistique) Syntaxe. Sémantique. semantics. LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Grammar & Punctuation. LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES Linguistics Syntax. Grammar, Comparative and general Clauses Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT reevematthew cleftsandtheirrelatives |