The distribution of quantifiers in clefts
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) *Mari minden kalapot nézett ki magának. Mary every hat.acc picked out herself.dat *‘It was every hat that Mary picked for herself.’ (2) *Mari valamit nézett ki magának. Mary something.acc picked out herself.dat *‘It was something that
Strong quantifiers in cleft pivots
Consider the following examples in Cypriot Greek which include clefted quantifiers.(10) En ULLI (i kalesmeni) pu efian. is all. masc.nom.pl (the guests) that left.3.pl ‘It is all (the guests) that left.’ (11) En I PARAPANO (pu tus kalesmenus) pu efian. is the.masc.nom.pl most (of the guests) that left.3.pl ‘It is most (of the guests) that left.’ (12) En LLII (pu tus kalesmenus) pu efian. is few.masc.nom.pl (of the guests) that left.3.pl ‘It is few (of the guests) that left.’
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) En O PETROS pu espase to vazo. is the Peter that broke.3.sg the vase ‘It is Peter that broke the vase.’
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. Questa casa ha la cucina molto vecchia. this house has the kitchen very old ‘This house has a very old kitchen.’ b. Non solo la cucina: è TUTTO qui che crolla a pezzi! ‘Not only the kitchen: it's everything here that falls into pieces.’
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)
It-clefts and stressed operators in the preverbal field of Cypriot Greek
Lingua
(2010)- et al.
Generalized quantifiers and natural language
Linguist. Philos.
(1981) - et al.
L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate
A Unification of Focus
(2004)Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation (Ph.D. dissertation, published in 1996)
(1992)The English cleft construction It-clefts
The Odd Yearbook
(2010)The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition (Ph.D. dissertation)
(1990)Clefting and discourse organization: comparing Germanic and Romance
Focusing strategies in Cypriot Greek
Copular clauses, clefts, and putative sluicing in Uzbek
Language
(2013)