Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- exhaustivity (4) (remove)
Institute
Èto-clefts are Russian focus constructions with the demonstrative pronoun èto ‘this’ at the beginning: “Èto Mark vyigral gonku” (“It was Mark who won the race”). They are often being compared with English it-clefts, German es-clefts, as well as the corresponding focus-background structures in other languages.
In terms of semantics, èto-clefts have two important properties which are cross-linguistically typical for clefts: existence presupposition (“Someone won the race”) and exhaustivity (“Nobody except Mark won the race”). However, the exhaustivity effects are not as strong as exhaustivity effects in structures with the exclusive only and require more research.
At the same time, the question if the syntactic structure of èto-clefts matches the biclausal structure of English and German clefts, remains open. There are arguments in favor of biclausality, as well as monoclausality. Besides, there is no consistency regarding the status of èto itself.
Finally, the information structure of èto-clefts has remained underexplored in the existing literature.
This research investigates the information-structural, syntactic, and semantic properties of Russian clefts, both theoretically (supported by examples from Russian text corpora and judgments from native speakers) and experimentally. It is determined which desired changes in the information structure motivate native speakers to choose an èto-cleft and not the canonical structure or other focus realization tools. Novel syntactic tests are conducted to find evidence for bi-/monoclausality of èto-clefts, as well as for base-generation or movement of the cleft pivot. It is hypothesized that èto has a certain important function in clefts, and its status is investigated. Finally, new experiments on the nature of exhaustivity in èto-clefts are conducted. They allow for direct cross-linguistic comparison, using an incremental-information paradigm with truth-value judgments.
In terms of information structure, this research makes a new proposal that presents èto-clefts as structures with an inherent focus-background bipartitioning. Even though èto-clefts are used in typical focus contexts, evidence was found that èto-clefts (as well as Russian thetic clefts) allow for both new information focus and contrastive focus. Èto-clefts are pragmatically acceptable when a singleton answer to the implied question is expected (e.g. “It was Mark who won the race” but not “It was Mark who came to the party”). Importantly, èto in Russian clefts is neither dummy, nor redundant, but is a topic expression; conveys familiarity which triggers existence presupposition; refers to an instantiated event, or a known/perceivable situation; finally, èto plays an important role in the spoken language as a tool for speech coherency and a focus marker.
In terms of syntax, this research makes a new monoclausal proposal and shows evidence that the cleft pivot undergoes movement to the left peripheral position. Èto is proposed to be TopP.
Finally, in terms of semantics, a novel cross-linguistic evaluation of Russian clefts is made. Experiments show that the exhaustivity inference in èto-clefts is not robust. Participants used different strategies in resolving exhaustivity, falling into 2 groups: one group considered èto-clefts exhaustive, while another group considered them non-exhaustive. Hence, there is evidence for the pragmatic nature of exhaustivity in èto-clefts. The experimental results for èto-clefts are similar to the experimental results for clefts in German, French and Akan. It is concluded that speakers use different tools available in their languages to produce structures with similar interpretive properties.
This paper reopens the discussion on focus marking in Akan (Kwa,
Niger-Congo) by examining the semantics of the so-called focus marker
in the language. It is shown that the so-called focus marker expresses
exhaustivity when it occurs in a sentence with narrow focus. The study
employs four standard tests for exhaustivity proposed in the literature
to examine the semantics of Akan focus constructions (Szabolsci 1981,
1994; É. Kiss 1998; Hartmann and Zimmermann 2007). It is shown that
although a focused entity with the so-called focus marker nà is
interpreted to mean ‘only X and nothing/nobody else,’ this meaning
appears to be pragmatic.
It has been observed for many African languages that focussed subjects
have to appear outside of their syntactic base position, as opposed to
focussed objects, which can remain in-situ. This is known as subjectobject
asymmetry of focus marking, which Fiedler et al. (2010) claim
to hold also for Akan. Genzel (2013), on the other hand, argues that
Akan does not exhibit a subject-object focus asymmetry. A questionnaire
study and a production experiment were carried out to investigate
whether focussed subjects may indeed be realized in-situ in Akan. The
results suggest that (i) focussed subjects do not have to be obligatorily
realized ex-situ, and that (ii) the syntactic preference for the realization
of a focussed subject highly depends on exhaustivity.
We present novel experimental evidence on the availability and the status of exhaustivity inferences with focus partitioning in German, English, and Hungarian. Results suggest that German and English focus-background clefts and Hungarian focus share important properties, (É. Kiss 1998, 1999; Szabolcsi 1994; Percus 1997; Onea & Beaver 2009). Those constructions are anaphoric devices triggering an existence presupposition. EXH-inferences are not obligatory in such constructions in English, German, or Hungarian, against some previous literature (Percus 1997; Büring & Križ 2013; É. Kiss 1998), but in line with pragmatic analyses of EXH-inferences in clefts (Horn 1981, 2016; Pollard & Yasavul 2016). The cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of EXH-inferences are attributed to properties of the Hungarian number marking system.