Elsevier

Lingua

Volume 171, February 2016, Pages 24-36
Lingua

The distribution of quantifiers in clefts

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Provides an account for the distribution of quantifiers in clefts.

  • Quantifiers are sometimes banned as clefted constituents and sometimes not.

  • Clefts express identificational focus.

  • Strong quantifiers can express exhaustive identification, weak quantifiers cannot.

  • Strong quantifiers qualify for clefted constituents, weak quantifiers do not.

Abstract

This paper examines the distribution of quantifiers in clefts. It addresses the fact that quantifiers are not always banned as clefted constituents and discusses analyses which have been proposed in the literature in order to account for this phenomenon. The paper argues that quantifiers qualify for clefted constituents only when they bear a strong reading (Agouraki, 2010). Using Cypriot Greek data, it argues that clefts express identificational focus and shows that under this analysis, the distribution of quantifiers, which are sometimes allowed to occur in clefts and sometimes not, can be explained. Quantifiers which have a strong interpretation can express exhaustive identification, whereas quantifiers which bear a weak reading cannot, as they do not satisfy the existence presupposition induced by the cleft clause. The analysis can carry over to crosslinguistic data displaying similar constraints on the distribution of quantifiers in constructions which express identificational focus.

Introduction

A prevalent approach to the distribution of quantifiers in clefts is that these are banned as clefted constituents due to the semantic interpretation they bear which is incompatible with the reading clefted constituents may bear, that is identificational focus (É. Kiss, 1998). On the basis of this assumption, it has been proposed that in languages in which quantifiers qualify for clefted constituents, clefts express a different meaning than the one expressed in languages like English (cf. Brunetti, 2004, Fotiou, 2009). In particular, it has been proposed that in these languages clefts do not bear an identificational focus interpretation. This paper argues that the distribution of quantifiers in these structures can in fact be accounted for under an identificational focus analysis of clefts.1 Using Cypriot Greek data, the paper argues that quantifiers may qualify for clefted constituents or not, depending on the reading they bear. Only quantifiers bearing a strong reading are legitimate as clefted constituents (cf. Agouraki, 2010). The paper provides an account for this, showing that quantifiers which have a strong interpretation can express exhaustive identification (É. Kiss, 1998) over a set of alternatives, whereas weak quantifiers cannot. Under this analysis, the distribution of quantifiers, which are sometimes banned and sometimes allowed to occur in cleft pivots, can be explained.

Section snippets

É. Kiss's (1998) analysis of the distributional restrictions in Hungarian preverbal foci and English clefts

É. Kiss (1998:251–253) argues that Hungarian preverbal focalizing constructions and their English equivalent, clefts, display restrictions in the distribution of universal and existential quantifiers. Consider the examples in (1)–(2) which are quoted from É. Kiss (1998:252).

(1)*Marimindenkalapotnézett ki magának.
 Maryeveryhat.accpicked out herself.dat
 *‘It was every hat that Mary picked for herself.’
(2)*Marivalamitnézett ki magának.
 Marysomething.accpicked out herself.dat
 *‘It was something that

Strong quantifiers in cleft pivots

Consider the following examples in Cypriot Greek which include clefted quantifiers.

(10)EnULLI(i kalesmeni)puefian.
isall. masc.nom.pl(the guests)thatleft.3.pl
‘It is all (the guests) that left.’
(11)EnIPARAPANO(pu tus kalesmenus)puefian.
isthe.masc.nom.plmost(of the guests)thatleft.3.pl
‘It is most (of the guests) that left.’
(12)EnLLII(pu tus kalesmenus)puefian.
isfew.masc.nom.pl(of the guests)thatleft.3.pl
‘It is few (of the guests) that left.’
The above examples involve proportional quantifiers in

Cypriot Greek clefts express identificational focus

Clefts have been analyzed as expressing a type of focus which is known as ‘contrastive’ (Vallduví and Vilkuna, 1998) or ‘identificational’ focus (É. Kiss, 1998).9

Identificational focus and the strong-weak distinction

Drawing on previous semantic analyses of exhaustivity in clefts, this section argues that clefts involve two types of presupposition (cf. Reeve, 2012, Gribanova, 2013): existence presupposition (Jackendoff, 1972, Percus, 1997, Rooth, 1999 among others) and exhaustiveness (Halvorsen, 1978, Szabolcsi, 1981 among others). Consider the example in (26).

(26)EnOPETROSpuespasetovazo.
isthePeterthatbroke.3.sgthevase
‘It is Peter that broke the vase.’
Existence presupposition entails that there is an X for

Applying the proposed analysis to crosslinguistic data

Having shown that Cypriot Greek clefts bear an identificational focus interpretation and that this can account for the distribution of quantifiers in cleft pivots, let us examine whether this can carry over to the Italian data.

Consider again the example in (6) quoted below as (36).

(36)a.Questacasahalacucinamoltovecchia.
thishousehasthekitchenveryold
‘This house has a very old kitchen.’
b.Nonsololacucina:èTUTTOquichecrollaapezzi!
‘Not only the kitchen: it's everything here that falls into pieces.’
As

Conclusion

This paper examined the constraints on the distribution of quantifiers in clefts. It addressed the question as to why quantifiers are sometimes legitimate as clefted constituents and sometimes not. Using Cypriot Greek data, the paper showed that only quantifiers bearing a strong reading are allowed to occur in clefts (Agouraki, 2010). The paper argued that this can be accounted for if we analyze Cypriot Greek clefts as expressing identificational focus (É. Kiss, 1998). Strong quantifiers can

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to George Tsoulas for his insightful comments. The author would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for raising important points which improved her work.

References (27)

  • Y. Agouraki

    It-clefts and stressed operators in the preverbal field of Cypriot Greek

    Lingua

    (2010)
  • J. Barwise et al.

    Generalized quantifiers and natural language

    Linguist. Philos.

    (1981)
  • P. Benincà et al.

    L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate

  • L. Brunetti

    A Unification of Focus

    (2004)
  • H. de hoop

    Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation (Ph.D. dissertation, published in 1996)

    (1992)
  • E. Dekany

    The English cleft construction It-clefts

    The Odd Yearbook

    (2010)
  • M. Diesing

    The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition (Ph.D. dissertation)

    (1990)
  • A. Dufter

    Clefting and discourse organization: comparing Germanic and Romance

  • C. Fotiou

    Focusing strategies in Cypriot Greek

  • V. Gribanova

    Copular clauses, clefts, and putative sluicing in Uzbek

    Language

    (2013)
  • P.-K. Halvorsen

    The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions

    (1978)
  • R. Jackendoff

    Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar

    (1972)
  • K. Kearns

    Semantics

    (2000)
  • View full text