Aspects of the grammar of focus in English.

ASPEXTS OF THE GRAMMAR

OF

FOCUS

IN

ENGLISH

Adrian A hj

fan

B.

A * ,

University

of Arizona

(1966)

SUBMITTED

IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF

THE RFlQUIREMENTS FOR

THE

DEGREE

OF

DOCTOR

OF

PHILOSOPHY a t the

MASSACHUSETTS

INSTITUTE

OF

TECHNOLOGY August,

1970

Signature

of A u t h o r . , . - , - , , . . - - -

Department of Foreign

dust

24,

1970

Literatures and Linguistics

,

Certified

by

.D....-...~...

Thesis

Sitpervisor Accepted

by,.

.

.

.-.-,-.-.-./.

.r.t.-gr;~~.

.

.. . .

.

. . .

.

. . . .

. .

. .

. .

.

.

. .

. .

.

ASPECTS OF THE GFUMMAR

OF

FOCUS

IN

ENGLISH

Adrian Wj i a n

Submitted t o t h e Department of Foreign L i t e r a t u r e s and L i n g u i s t i c s on August

24,

1990

in

p a r t i a l

f u l f i l h e n i t of t h e requirement f o r t h e degree of Doctor of Philosophy. .

Abstract -II_

The c e n t r a l purpose of t h i s study i s t o present s p e c i f i c s y n t a c t i c and semantic a n a l y s i s of t h a t area of grammar k n m a s t h e grammar of focus, In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e t h e s i s p r e s e n t s a s p e c i f i c grammatical a n a l y s i s of t h e s y n t a c t i c and semantic i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s which ko1.d between pseudo-cleft sentences, c l e f t sentences, and non-clefted sentences. It

i s

argued t h a t pseudo-cleft sentences d e r i v e from two s y n t a c t i c sources. Or.e source

i s

a transformational source, i n which t h e phrase mark- e r f o r t h e corresponding non-clefted sentence i s incorporated i n t o t h e deep phrase marker f o r t h e pseudo-cleft sentence.

The o t h e r source

i s a

source i n t h e base ( s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e base expansion NP-be-NP), i n which pseudo-cleft sentences a r e generated i n essentially

their

s u r f a c e form. It

i s

argued t h a t no semantic ambiguity can be a s s o c i a t e d with t h i s d u a l i t y of source, and hence, an unambiguous s u r f a c e s t n c t u r e may

d e r i v a from more than one deep s t r u c t u r e source. With regard

t o c l e f t sentences, it

i s

argued t h a t t h e s e derive s y n t a c t i c a l - l y from pseudo-clef t sentences. Finally,

a

s p e c i f i c semantic n o t a t i o n i s proposed

t o

represent focus-presupposition r e l a - t i o n s . It

i s

shown'that corresponding pseudo-cleft, c l e f t , and non-clefted sentences r e c e i v e i d e n t i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

in

t h i s notation, even though t h e i r deep s t r u c t u r e represen- t a t i o n s

are

formally d i s t i n c t . It

i s

f u r t h e r

skotm

t h a t t h e semantic n o t a t i o n developed f o r f ~ c u s - p r e s u p p ~ s i t i a r n r e l a t i o n s has uses i n other a r e a s of t h e g q i m a r , s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t

I n t e r p r e t i v e p r i n c i p l e s f o r anaphoric expressions u t i l i z e t h i s n o t a t ion,

Thesis Supervisor: Morris Halle T i t l e : Professor of L i n g u i s t i c s

I have benefited g r e a t l y over t h e p a s t s e v e r a l years

from

d9scussions with various f r i e n d s , colleagues, and teachers concerning t h e i s s u e s d e a l t with i n t h i s t h e s i s . S p e c i f i c a l -

l y , I wish t o express my g r a t i t u d e t o t h e following people

f o r p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l c m e n t s and suggestions: Stephen

B.

Anderson, Joan Bresnan, Peter Culicover, Joseph Emonds, Bob

Faraci, Michael Helke, Irwin Howard, Jerry Katz, S i l l Leben,

David Vetter, and George Williams. I have t r i e d t o c r e d i t

them where I have used t h e i r i d e a s ; unfortunately, I must

accept f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l l wrong

and

f o o l i s h thinking contained i n t h e following pages,

Both David P e r h u t t e r and John R o Ross have provided me

with e x c e l l e n t suggestions i n t h e r e v i s i o n of an e a r l i e r

d r a f t of t h i s t h e s i s . Bruce Fraser, of t h e Language Research Foundat ion (Cambridge), has provided continual k o u r a g e m e n t

,

and 1 am g r a t e f u l t o h h f o r pzattdng up with hours of arguing

about various i s s u e s . Special thatlks go t o Ray Jackendoff,

who has always been a constant source of s t i m u l a t i n g ideas.

4

I have benefited i m e a s u r a b l y : t o Kenneth Hale, from whom I

f i r s t took courses i n l i n g u i s t i c s ;

whose

l e c t u r e s and w r i t i n g s have stimulated t h e work

in

t h i s t h e s i s ; and f i n a l l y , t o Morris HalPe, under whom I wrote t h i s t h e s i s , who has provided s o many hours of d e t a i l e d , c r i t i c a l discus-

sion.

The research contained i n t h i s t h e s i s was supported i n

p a r t by a grant

from

t h e

TEC

Company of Tokyo, Japan, t o t h e

Language Research Foundatton, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Finally, l e t m e p u b l i c l y apologize t o Patty Regan and - .

Katriria Streiff f o r s u b j e c t i n g

them

t o t h e l e s s than

stimu-

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

. . .

Abstract

Page 2

. . .

Acknowledgements

3

. . .

Introduction

10

Chapter 1

The Syntactic Derivstion sf Pseudo-Cleft Sentences

. . .

1

.

Terminology

18

2

.

M~tivations

for

a

Transformational Analysis of

. . .

Pseudo-Cleft Sentences

21

3

.

Transformational Theories of Pseudo-Cleft

. . .

Sentences

27

. . .

3.1. The &traction Theory

27

. . .

3.2.

The Deletion Theory

30

4

.

Pseudo-Cleft Sentences as Base Generated

Structures

. . .

32

. . .

5

.

Syntactic Motivation for

a

Dual Source*

38

5.1. Consequences of the Existence of

a

. . .

Source in the

Base

44

. . .

6

.

Extraction or Deletion?

54

6

.

1

.

Evidence from Distribution of Bso.Foms

. . .

56

6.2, Arguments f r m the Derivation of Cleft

$

Sentences

. . .

66

Chapter 2

I'he Syntactic Derivation of C l e f t Sentences

1. Deriving C l e f t Sen.tences from Pseudo-Cleft

Sentences

. .

. .

. .

. . .

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

Page 104 2. On Mot il.rat'lng Transf o m a t i o n a l Rules.

.

.

.

.

. .

106 3. Evidence f o r t h e Proposal

. . .

.

. . .

.

. .

. .

107 3.1. Evidence from Verb Agreement P a t t e r n s .

. . .

107

3 , 2 . Evidence from Reflexive Agreements i n

t h e Clause

. .

.

. .

. .

. .

. . .

.

. . .

.

1 1 7 3.3. Reflexives

i n

Focus P o s i t i o n

.

.

.

.

. . . .

124

3.4. Evidence from Idismatic Reflexive

Constructions.

.

. .

.

.

. . .

.

. . . .

.

.

1 2 7 4. The Deep S t r u c t u r e Source f o r C l e f t Sentences

. .

130

5. Evidence

from the

Derivation of P r e p o s i t i o n a l P h r a s e s . . . . . . 1 3 3

6.

R e s t r i c t i o n s on Items Which Can Appear i n

Focus Position.

.

. .

. . .

.

.

.

. . .

. .

.

. .

141

7. Further Extensions.

. . . .

.

. . .

. . .

. .

.

.

145

Footnotes t o Chapfer 2

.

.

. . .

.

.

. .

.

. . . . .

148 Chapter 3

The

Semantic I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Clefted Sentences

and tL~e Sesnant i c Representation of Focus-Presupposition

Relations t

1. Objectives.

. . .

. . .

.

.

. . . .

. . .

.

.

160 2. Basic Factors i n t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

2.1.

Specificatfonal vs

.

Predicational

. . .

Page 162

2.2. Referential

vs

.

Non-Ref

erential

. . . .

166

2.3.

Farther Diati~guishing

Features

. . .

168

3

.

Semantic Ambiguity in Clefted Sentences

. . .

174

4

.

The Semantic Interpretation of Clefted

. . .

Sentences

182

...

4.1

Deep

Structure Considerations

.

.

.

183

. . .

4.2.

Surface

Structure Considerations

188

. . .

5

.

'Focus'

and

'~resiq~osition'.

189

5.1

.

Lingui-stic Significance of the Notions

. . .

'FOCUS'

and

' ~ r e s u ~ ~ ~ s i t i o n ~

194

5.1.1. The Notion sf Focus and the Structure

of Discourse

. . .

194

5.1.2.

Scope

of

Logical Elements

. . .

203

6

.

The

Semantic Notation for Focus and

Presupposition

. . .

213

6.1. Justification for Proposed Semantic

Notation

. . .

221

6.1.1.

Focus as 'Novelf Information

. . .

222

6.1.2. Logkeaf

: Scope

and Attraction

to FOCUS

. . .

224

6.2. Intonation

and

Senmantic Representation

. . .

238

.

. . . .

6.2.1. Contradictive vs Conclusive.

238

7

.

Concluding

Renarks

on ~ l e f i e d

Sentences

.

250

8

.

A Note

on

Syntactic Representation vs

.

Semantic RepresentatLon

. . .

25%

. . .

Chapter

4

Focus and t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Anaphoric Expressiofis

. . .

1

.

Focus and Anapkora Page 268

2

.

An I n t e r p r e t i v e P r i n c i p l e : Pairing of Foci

. . . .

272

2 . 1

.

Sentences with More Than One Focus

. . .

275

2.2. S h i f t i n g Intonation Centers

. . .

276

2.3. Combining Presuppositions

. . .

278

2.4. F i l t e r i n g Deviant Cases

. . .

281

2.5. Cases with No Pairing of Foci

. . .

284

3

.

ROSS'S Objections

. . .

287

3.1.1. Syntactic Arguments i n Favor of

. . .

Sluicing 288 3 . 2 . The Transformat E ~ n a l Approach :

. . .

Syntactic Deletion

291

3.3. "Sloppy I d e n t i t y "

. . .

295

3 . 3 , l . Defects i n t h e Notion of Sloppy I d e n t i t y

. . .

296

4

.

An I n t e r p r e t i v e Appraach t o Pronoun Ambiguities

.

301

4.1.

Intonation and Pronoun Ambiguities

.

.

3Q2 4.1.1. Perceptual Cues f o r Intonation ' Peaks

. . .

305

t 4.2. Cases with Two o r More Anapkoric Expressions

307

5

.

Deletion Rules and I n t e r p r e t i v e Rules

.

.

.

309

5.1. Compatibility of Deletion Rules and I n t e r p r e t i v e Rules

. . .

311

5 . 2 . L'vidence That Deletion

is

Not

Meaning-

Preserving

. . .

Pags

. 314 6

.

Summary

. . .

316 Footnotes t o Chapter 4

. . .

318 Bibliography

. . .

331

. . .

Biographical Note 335

INTRODUCTION

The c e n t r a l purpose of t h i s study

i s

t o pres'ent s p e c i f i c syntactic and semantic analyses within a p a r t i c u l a r area of English grammar, namely t h a t which we can l a b e l a s t h e 'gram-

mar

of focus'

.

This term

is

intended t o d e l i n e a t e an area of grammar which has t o do with t h e p a r t i t i m i n g of a sentence

i n t o portions which a r e 'prominent', 'novel I , 'emphasized',

and s o forth, as -posed t o portions which a r e 'presupposed', "assumed

' ,

o r

'

anaphoric

'

.

In p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s area of

grammar

has t o do with s e t s of sentences such a s t h e following:

(1) What caused t h e g r e a t e s t devastation i n t h e 14th

century

was

t h e plague.

(2) It was t h e plague t h a t caused the g r e a t e s t devasta-

t i o n i n

the

14th century.

(3)

THE

PLAGUE

caused t h e g r e a t e s t devastation i n t h e

14th

century.

Such

sentences

are

i n t u i t i v e l y judged a s

being

q u i t e s i m i l a r and r e l a t e d i n various ways. Each

of

t h e sentences above has t h e same constituent

as

its

3-focus namely

the

constituent

a s being semantically promknent, o r novel ( i n a sense made

more p r e c i s e

i n

Chapter 31, with respect t o t h e surroundfrig material. The remainder of t h e material i n these sentences

i s said t o be 'presupposed' or non-prominent.

I n this study r e i n v e s t i g a t e t h e s y n t a c t i c and semantic inter-relationships which hold among s e t s of sehtences such a s (11,

(2),

and

(3).

m e most important &i& of t h i s t h e s i s

i s t o present concrete and s p e c i f i c grammatical analysis of these grammatical i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s .

The

work presented i n t h i s study f a l l s naturalby i n t o two parts.

In t h e . f i r s t h a l f of t h e t h e s i s we present a s y n t a c t i c analysis of pseudo-cleft and c l e f t sentences. In Chapter 1,

t h e s y n t a c t i c derivation of pseudo-cleft sentences i s d i s - cussed. We attempt t o show t h a t pseudo-cleft sentences (such a s (1) ) a r e s y n t a c t i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o non-cleftsd sentences

(such a s ( 3 ) ) , and t h a t a theory of pseudo-cleft sentences must provide f o r d.eep s t r u c t u r e representat ions of pseudo- c l e f t sentences which

-

incorporate t h e phrase

markers

f o r t h e correspon.dlng non-clefted sentences. In t h i s regard, we Eol-

low Bach and Peters f

19681

and Chamsky

[f967].

m i l e any theory must express a s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n holding between

pseudo-cleft sentences and non-cfsfted sentences, we go o.rr t o argue t h a t pseudo-cleft sentences a l s o derive from a second, independent s o m e within t h e grammar, namely, s base

expansion of

NP-be-NP.

Thus. it merges t h a t pseudo-cleft sentences a r e i n some ways s y n t a c t i c a l l y independent from non-clef t e d sentences, and

w e

present p o s i t i v e evidence f o r t h i s position. Finally, two trans£ o m t f onal theories of pseudo-cleft sentences a r e compared (i.e. t h a t of b c h and

Peters [ 19681 and t h a t of Chcmsky [1967]), and we argue i n favor of so-called ' e x t r a c t i o n analyses'.

I n Chapter 2, w e argue t h a t pseudo-cleft sentences and c l e f t sentences

(i;

e.

(I)

and (2)) must be s y n t a c t i c a l l y

re-

lated. It i s proposed t h a t c l e f t sentences derive syntac-

t i c a l l y from pseudo-cleft sentences by a

rule

which extra- poses t h e i n i t i a l clause of t h e pseudo-cleft sentence. n u s ,

i t emerges t h a t t h e s y n t a c t i c t n t e r - r e l a t ions holding between sentences

(I),

(2) and (3) a r e expressed by deriving (1) from

(3)

(in

t h e sense t h a t t h e phrase marker

for

(3)

i s

incorpor- ated i n t o

the

deep str"c.ture phrase marker f o r ( 1 ) ) ; and by

deriving (2)

f

r m

(1).

Throughout t h e f i r s t half sf the t h e s i s ,

the

evidence presented f o r s p e c i f i c s y n t a c t i c analyses

is

formal

i n

nature,

i. e. it i s evidence from t h e formal shape of sentences, r a t h e r

than evidence from meaning, a s

such.

In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e evi- dence corks

ists i n

argument e

f

ram

s y n t a c t i c d i s t r i b u t i o n , f o r example, arguments dealing with s y n t a c t i c agreement patterns, d i s t r i b u t i o n of derived phrases, and.so forth.

13 I n t h e second half of t h e t h e s i s we i n v e s t i g a t e t h e seman- t i c inter-relationships holding between pseudo-cleft, c l e f t ,

and n ~ n - c l e f t e d sentences. I n Chapter 3 we begin with a cm-

s i d e r a t i o n a€ scanantic ambiguities i n pseudo-cleft sentences, concluding t h a t t h e r e a r e no semantic ambiguities which can

be associated with t h e dual source f o r pseudo-cleft sentences.

We then proceed t o

a

d i s c w s i o n of t h e semantic representation of s e t s of r e l a t e d c l e f t e d and non-clefted sentenees.

The

primary task of Chapter

3

is

t o develop a semantic notation

f o r focus-presupposition r e l a t i o n s and t o show Row s e t s of sentences such a s ( I ) , (21, and

(3)

a r e assigned i d e n t i c a l focus-presupposition representat%ons within t h i s notetien. We follow t h e general approach f i r s t

outlined

by Choasky

[ 19691, i. e.

,

an approach i n which focus-prestrpposition r e l a - t i o n s a r e determined by semantic interpret5ve rules operating on t h e l e v e l of (phonetically interpreted)

surface structures.

It

emerges t h a t s e t s of sentences

such

as

( I ) , (2), arzd

(3)

a r e assigned i d e n t i c a l semantic representations, even though t h e i r s y n t a c t i c deep s t r u c t u r e representations a r e not i d e n t i - c a l .

Finally, i n Chrapter 4, we disauea ways i n

which

t h e

se-

mantic notation developed i n Chapter 3 can be extended t o other p a r t s of t h e grammar. SpecifAcally, t h a t chapter deals with semant i e i n t e r p r e t i v e principles f o r enapkorie

14 expressions, and w e attempt t o show that t h e n o t a t i o n f o r

focus-presupposition r e l a t i o n s p l a y s a c r u c f a l r o l e i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t ion of c e r t a i n anaphoric expressions.

While t h e primary purpose of t h i s t h e s i s

i s

t o present s p e c i f i c grammatical a n a l y s i s f o r a range of data, some of t h e work presented h e r e has d i r e c t bearing on c e r t a i n theore- t i c a l i s s u e s of c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t .

The

t h e o r e t i c a l framework adopted i n t h i s t h e s i s i s t h a t which has been discussed and developed i n p a r t i c u l a r by Ckomsky ([ 19671, [ 19691, [ B970]), Jackendoff ([1969]), and b o n d s ([1970]), and wh%cl,~ has come

t o be labeled generally a s t h e ' I n t e r p r e t i v e ' framework. There a r e two s p e c i f i c t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions of t h i s

p a r t i c u l a r framework which a r e of relevance f o r t h i s study:

I. There i s a l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c deep s t r u c t u r e , inde-

pendent of semantic representation. I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s

i s

t h e l e v e l which

i s

formed by t h e r u l e s of

the base, which forms t h e output of l e x i c a l i n s e r -

t i o n r u l e s , and t h e input t o t r a n s f o m a t f s n r .

11. The l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e

i s

a v a i l a b l e a s an input f o r semantic i n t e r p r e t i v e r u l e s , and thus

t h e semantic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

cf

sentences is not de-

$

f i n e d exclusively by t h e level. of deep s t r u c t u r e . Confirmation of I, above,

i s

fourad i n t h e d e r i v a t i o n of pseudo-cleft sentences. We attempt t o show t h a t the pseudo-

15 c l e f t can derive from two s y n t a c t i c sources, and f u r t h e r t h a t

no ambiguity can be associated with t h i s d u a l i t y of source.

Hence, an unambiguous sentence can d e r i v e from two formally

d i s t i n c t deep s t r u c t u r e s . This is c o n s i s t e n t only with a theory i n which deep s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e d i s t i n c t

from semantic representations. (For r e c e n t work dealing with

the notion of deep s t r u c t u r e , s e e

S.R.

Anderson [ f ~ r t h c o m i n g ,

b] and P. CuPicover [ 19701 .)

Notice, i n c i d e n t a l l y , t h a t t h e claim t h a t an unambiguous

sentence can have more than one deep s t r u c t u r e source does

not represent a departure from standard transformational

theory. For example, w i t h i n t h e framework developed by Katz

and P o s t a l [1964], it

i s

l o g i c a l l y necessary t o a s s i g n t o an ambiguous surface s t r u c t u r e more than one deep s t r u c t u r e r e -

p r e s e n t a t i o n ( t h e number of sources being equnl t o t h e number

of p o s s i b l e sources). This

i s

simply a consequence of

the

assumption t h a t t h e semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a sentence must

be e x p l i c i t l y and d i s c r e t e l y represented i n

the

deep s t r u c t u r e phrase marker, and t h a t only t h i s

level

determines semantic

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . However, the converse i s not t r u e . Even w i t h i n t h e Katz-Postal framework, it

i s

l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e

\

f o r an unambiguous s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e . t o d e r i v e

from

more than one deep s t r u c t u r e , each deep s t r u c t u r e source being formally

16 s y n t a c t i c deep s t r u c t u r e

is

d i s t i n c t from t h e l e v e l

-

of seman- t f c representation, and t h e r e f o r e t h e r e exhsts a l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t semantic i n t e r p r e t i v e r u l e s can a s s i g n t h e same semantic readings t o formally d i s t i n c t deep s t r u c t u r e phrase markers. 'We argue t h a t t h i s l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y

i s

i n

f a c t i n s t a n t i a t e d i n t h e c a s e of pseudo-cleft sentences.

Turning now t o t h e o r e t i c a l assumption 11 above, through- out Chapters 3 and 4 we argue f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e p r i n c i p l e s which operate on s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s . I n Chapter 3 we present arguments t h a t focus-presuppasftfon r e l a t i o n s must be d e t e r - mined on s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s : i . e . , t h a t t h e r e l e v a n t generali-

zations a r e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s i n t h e sense t h a t the focus-presupposition r e l a t i m a of a sentenco a r e determined by t h e s u r f a c e derived phrase s t r u c t u r e of a sen- t e r c e , a s well a s various f a c t o r s of intonation. I n Chapter

4

w e present arguments t h a t i n t e r p r e t i v e p r i n c i p l e s f o r ana- phoric expressions must operate on s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s a s well, s i n c e these must make c r u c i a l use of focus-presupposition r e -

l a t ions.

While t h e work i n t h i s t h e s i s

i s

approached f r m an Pn- t e r p r e t i v e p o i n t

oE

view, it

is

not$ our purpose t o present negative a r g m e n t s a g a i n s t o t h e r p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s t h e s i s

i s

n o t intended t o c o n s t i t u t e

a

c r i t i - cism of t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n which

i s

known

a s "Generative

17

Smamtics" ( c f . Lakoff

[1969]).

It

,is not c l e a r et t h i s t i n e whether i n fact the two approaches represent genuine alterna- tives or merely variants of some

sort

(for discussion o f t h i s issue, s e e Chmsky [ l 9 7 0 ) ) . Therefore, it must be emphasized that the central 'purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s t o present f a c t s which any theory must account f o r , and t o present

analyses

which a l l theories must adopt i n sane

form.

CHAPTER

1

THE

SYNTACTIC DERIVATION

OF

PSENDO-CLEFT

SENTENCES

1. Terminology

We t a k e t h e t e r n pseudo-cleft t o r e f e r t o t h e c l a s s of

copula constructions of t h e f o l l ~ w i n g s o r t :

(1) a. The one Nixon chose was Agnew.

b. The t h i n g which Herman bought was t h a t t a r a n t u l a ,

c. The place where he f i n a l l y ended up

was

Berkeley. d. The time a t which John a r r i v e d was 5 o'clock.

e . The reason Fillmore s e n t Perry was t o e x p l o i t t h e

Japanese.

f. The

way H e did t h a t was by using a decoder. (2) a. Who Mixon chose was Agnew. 1

b, What Herman bought was t h a t t a r a n t u l a .

c. Where he f i n a l l y ended up was

i n

Berkeley.

d. When John a r r i v e d was a t ' 5 o'clock.

e. Why Fillmore s e n t Perry was t o e x p l o i t t h e

19 f .

How

h e d i d t h a t was by using a decoder.

The i n i t i a l r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s of (1) have f u l l l e x i c a l heads,

while t h o s e of (2) do n o t have l e x i c a l l y r e a l i z e d heads. ' We

r e f e r t o t h e c l a u s e s of

(I)

a s "bound" r e l a t i v e s , and t h o s e

of (2) a s "free" k e l a t i v e s . I n each c a s e w e r e f e r ' t o t h e post-copular c o n s t i t u e n t a s t h e

-

focus of t h e pseudo-cleft, and t h e post-copular p o s i t i o n a s t h e focus p o s i t i o n .

me

e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s pseudo-cleft sentences from o t h e r copula c o n s t r u c t i o n s

i s

t h a t t h e

initial

c l a u s e of t h e pseudo-cleft c o n t a i n s what

i s

e s s e n t i a l l y a

semantic v a r i a b l e , a semantic 'gap' which must be ' f i l l e d ' o r

s p e c i f i e d by t h e focus

i t e m ,

I n t h i s r e s p e c t , pseudo-cleft sentences a r e r e l a t e d t o WH q u e s t i o n s and

their

answers, which a l s o e n t e r i n t o a r e l a t i o n of s p e c i f i c a t i o n . Notice

t h a t sentences such a s t h o s e of (1) c o n t a i n r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s

whose heads f u n c t i o n as v a r i a b l e s ranging over given semantic c l a s s e s . Thus,

-

one a c t s a s a v a r i a b l e rangdng over the c l a s s of humans, t h i n % ranges over t h e c l a s s of inanimates, and s o

f o r t h .

In

t h e sentences of ( 2 ) , t h e

WH

words of t h e free

r e l a t i v e s f u n c t i o n a s semantic v a r i a b l e s , a g a i n ranging over

a p p r o p r i a t e classes. The focus item%must s p e c i f y a v a l u e f o r t h e v a r i a b l e of t h e c l a u s e , and it t h u s follows t h a t t h e focus

item must belong t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e semantic c l a s s , i . e . , t h e

20

Related t o t h i s

i s

t h e f a c t t h a t pseudo-cleft sentences e n t e r i n t o paraphrase r e l a t i o n s h i p s with non-clefted sen-

tences, in t h e sense t h a t i f t h e v a r i a b l e

of

t h e c l a u s e were replaced by t h e focus i t e m , a well-formed sentence should

r e s u l t . FOP example, sentences such

as

(1) and (2) have

paraphrases of t h e following s o r t : 2

(3) Nixon chose Agnew.

( 4 ) Heman bought t h a t t a r a n t u l a .

. . .

(This p a r a l l e l i s m with non-elefted sentences has i n f a c t been

taken a s t h e c e n t r a l f a c t t o be a c c ~ u n t e d f o r i n transfjbrma- t i o n a l analyses of pseudo-cleft sentences.) I n sum, a

necessary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e pseudo-cleft i s t h e existence

of a semantic v a r i a b l e ( o r 'gap') contained i n a f r e e

or

bound r e l a t i v e . Further, t h i s v a r i a b l e i s s p e c i f i e d by t h e focus item, and

i n

t h i s way t h e pseudo-eleft is analogous i n function t o question-answer p a i r s .

2, Motivations f o r a Transformational Analysis of Pseudo-Clef t

Sent enzes

A s w e have mentioned, grammarians have viewed t h e para-

l l e l i s m between pseudo-cleft and non-clefted sentences as t h e c e n t r a l f a c t t o be accounted f o r

i n

t h e a n a l y s i s of pseudo- c l e f t sentences. For exerrile, Bach and P e t e r s

[I9681

i n p r e s e n t i n g t h e i r a n a l y s i s d i s c u s s sentences such a s :

(5) a. What John counted was t h e pigeons.

b. John counted t h e pigeons.

They n o t e t h a t both sentences a r e understood t o have t h e same grammatical r e l a t i o n s , and t h a t v i o l a t i o n s of s a l e c t i o n a l

r e s t r i c t i o n s i n one w i l l be matched i n t h e o t h e r (e. g., t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a s i n g u l a r count nourr a s t h e o b j e c t of

count). Bach and P e t e r s go on t o make t h e claim t h a t whatever

-

can f i t i n t ~ t h e frame (6a) can a l s o f i t i n t o t h e frame (6b):

(6) a. What John counted was

-

.

b. John counted

-

The d i s t r i b u t i o n of items

i n

post-copular p o s i t i o n

i s

thus

held t o be a f u n c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e s e items i n non-cleftecl sentence.?. Beth and

Peters

go on t o s t a t e :

$

(7)

". .

.

i t i s c l e a r t h a t i n any theory w i t h a modicum of explanatory adequacy t h e most h i g h l y valued

t o a pseudo-cleft sentence a deep s t r u c t u r e con- t a i n i n g a phrase marker c l o s e l y resembling

the

.- deep s t r u c t u r e of t h e corresponding u n c l c f t ed

sentence. 1 t

Part of t h e motivation f o r (7) c o n s i s t s i n arguments from s i m i l a r i t y of grammatical r e l a t i o n s and s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s . However, arguments of a more i n t e r e s t i n g s o r t , which go beyond s i m i l a r i t y of grammatical r e l a t i o n s , have a l s o been advanced. The azgurnents i n question e r e based on t h e observation t h a t in c e r t a i n pseudo-cleft sentences there i s a grammatical dependence, o r g r a m t ic a l connectedness,

between t h e focus item and t h e i n i t i a l clause.

Consider, f o r example, arguments based on t h e d i s t r i b u - t i o n of r e f l e x i v e pronouns, which have been presented by

J.R.

Ross [ c l a s s l e c t u r e s ] , and Bach and P e t e r s [1968]. Take t h e following sentences :

(8) a. What John did was wash

$

b, What John wants Mary t o do

i s

wash

h e r s e l f j (Starred f o r m i n d i c a t e impsasibf l i t y of c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y with s m e i t e m i n t h e preceding cla&se.)

The

d i s t r i b u t i o n

of r e f l e x i v e f o m s i n ($a-b) is p a r a l l e l with t h e d i s t r i b u - t i o n of such f o m s i n non-clefted sentences, such a s :

(9) a. John washed

*himse;lf

b. John wants Mary t o wash

To c a p t u r e t h i s f a c t , analyses proposed s o f a x (Chmsky [1967], Bach and Peters [l968], 9 . R . Ross [ c l a s s l e c t u r e s ] ,

b o n d s [1970]) meet t h e condition s p e c i f i e d i n

(7), i.

e. t h e pseudo-cleft deep s t r u c t u r e f o r sentences such a s (8) contains

an embedded phrase marker f o r sentences such as (9). I n t h l s

way, such t h e o r i e s express t h e generalization t h a t t h e

d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e f l e x i v e s i n pseudo-cleft

end

nsn-clefted sentences is governed by t h e same p r i n c i p l e s . In t h i s sense, then, we use t h e term 'grammatical connectedness' : t h e

appearance of r e f l e x i v e pronouns i n ps eudo-e

lef

t sentences such a s those of (8)

i s

n ~ t a r b i t r a r y o r independent of any-

t h i n g e l s e wllthin t h e s e sentences. Retheq t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n

\

of such f o m s

i s

'governed' by t h e i n i t i a l clauses. To c a p t u r e t h i s f a c t , a t r s a n s f o m t i o n a l a n a l y s i s which meets

condition (7)

i s

required. 3

24

sentences bear no t r a n s f ~ r m a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o non-clefted

sentences, it would then be c o s t l y t o account f o r t h e f a c t s

manifested i n (8). F i r s t w e would note t h a t t h e r e f l ~ a i v i z a - t i s n r u l e ( o r p r i n c i p l e ) which operates w i t h i n s i n g l e clauses could not operate on sentences such a s (81, s i n c e t h e r e f l e x -

i v e pronoun

i s

dominated by

a

d i f f e r e n t

-

S node than

i t s

antecedent. Therefore, some extensicn of the r u l e would be

necessary. However, such an extension of t h e r u l e would be

merely a restatement

of

t h e r u l e with some ad-hoc provision added t o allow r e f l e x i v e s t o appear i n pseudo-cleft sentences.

( i . e . t o a l l m t h e copula t o intervene between t h e r e f l e x i v e

and

i t s

antecedent), This

i s

t h e c a s e simply because t h e f a c t s of (8) and (9)

a r e

completely p a r a l l e l .

Such d i s t r i b u t i o n a l arguments can be extended i n various

ways. For example, consider t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i b u -

t i o n of r e f l e x i v e £oms with t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of derived

phrases i n focus p o s i t i o n :

(10) a. What John i s

i s

eager t o p l e a s e (himself), b. What John

i s i s

easy t o p l e a s e (*hFmself). We note t h a t derived s u r f a c e phrases may appear i n focus

\

p o s i t i o n , which i n i t s e l f presents problems f o r e theory

which would generate pseudo-clef t sentences completely

4

independently of mon-clefted sentences. Further, onewoufd

r e f l e x i v e may appear i n (10a) but not i n (lob). HoweVer,

t h e o r i e s which adhere t o p r i n c i p l e (7) have a n a t u r a l aecaunt

f o r sentences suck a s those of ( l o ) , s i n c e t h e pseudo-cleft

deep s t r u c t u r e would incorporate t h e phrase markers

for

t h e following non-clefted .-.ntenr. q:

(11) a. John i s eager t y please (himself).

b. John

i s

eesy t o please (*himself).

These would be represented with phrase markers of roughly t h e

following form:

(12) a. [ John be eager [John p l e a s e

b.

[ [PRO p l e a s e John) be easy ]

These would be f i r s $ s u b j e c t t o operations whlhch would map them onto sentences such a s ( l l ) , and t h e s e

i n

t u r n would be

s u b j e c t t o some s o r t of c l e f t i a g operation.

In

t h i s way, t h e f a c t s of (10) and (11) would be accounted f o r i n e

u n i t a r y fashion. For such reasons, then, e t r e n s f o r n a t i o n a l

a n a l y s i s of pseudo-cleft sentences i s motivated. 5

The fundamental claim embodied by a transformational

a n a l y s i s

i s

t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n s on pseudo-cleft sentences a r e p a r a l l e l with r e s t r i c t ions on non-clefted sentences. a h i s

c l a b , however, needs t o be q u a l i f i e d somewhat a t the o u t s e t ,

i n t h a t not a l l r e s t r i c t i o n s on pseudo-clefts e r e r e l a t e d t o

pseudo-clef t sentences contain r e l a t i v e clauses, they- a r e bound t o r e s t r i c t i o n s on r e l a t i v e s . For example, consider the following:

(13) a. *What I forced

was

B i l l t o leave. b. *what I forced B i l l

was

t o leave. c. What I forced B i l l t o do was leave.

The

ungrammatieality of sentences such a s (13a) and (l3b) has nothing t o do with t h e apecif i e transfornaatisnal derivation of pseudo-cleft sentences, but

is

a consequence of

the

f a c t t h a t

i n

any event t h e r e a r e no r e l a t i v e clauses of the

f o l l m i n g form :

(14) a. *What I forced.

b. *!&at

I

forced B i l l .

The f a c t s of (13) and (14) a r e n a t u r a l l y r e l a t e d t o f a c t s concerning t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o£ pro-f o m s :

(15) a. *I forced something.

b.

*I

forced B i l l something.

Therefore, w e must recognize a t t h e outset t h a t not a l l r e s t r i c t i o n s on pseudo-cleft sentences can be r e l a t e d t o r e s t r i c t i o n s on non-clefted sentences.

27 3. Transf o m a t

ional

!theories of Pseudo-Clef t Sentences

3.1. The Extraction Theory. The transformational

a n a l y s i s of pseudo-cleft sentences which we adopt i n t h i s

study i s t h a t proposed by Chomsky [I9671 and b o n d s [1970],

which we r e f e r t o a s t h e Extraction Theory. The e s s e n t i a l

f e a t u r e of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t h a t t h e focus p o s i t i o n

i s

empty a t t h e deep s t r u c t u r e l e v e l , and

is

f i l l e d by t h e e x t r a c t i o n t r a n s £ ormat ion, which operates on a n embedded clause. For example, t h e deep s t r u c t u r e f o r sentences such a s (16) would

be (17) (taken

from

Chmaky [1967]) :

(16) a. What John read was a book about himself.

b. What John did was read a book about himself.

A

it

s2

be

A

Pred

I

A

I

I

- 2 John ~ a s t V L NP

I

b

read a b s o k PP

A

a b ~ u t John $

(The

symbol Pred

i s

h e r e used merely a s an abbreviation

for

7 t h e various category nodes which can appear i n t h i s position.)

28 e x t r a c t s

a

major constituent of t h e embedded sentence (e. g. S,

NP,

W, PP), and places t h i s constituent

i n

t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e empty A, leaving behind an appropriate pro-form i n t h e place of t h e extracted c s n s t i t ~ , m t .

To t a k e an wample, l e t

us

consider t h e derivation of

2

t h e sentences of

(16).

F i r s t , on t h e l e v e l s f S of (17), t h e r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n r u l e (or principle) operates t o ' r e f l e x -

i v i z e ' t h e second occurrence of t h e

NP

3-John thus giving f o r

2 1

S John re&

a

book about himself. On t h e S cycle two r u l e s of relevance must apply, namely t h e Extraction Rule and then

WH-Fronting, i n t h a t order. For (16a), t h e extraction r u l e

2

2

applies t o S by extracting NP

,

placing i t

i n

t h e position of t h e empty predicate A, and leaving i n i t s place

a

pro-form what ( i . e .

WH

+

i t ) . This leaves us with t h e following

-

intermediate s t r u c t u r e :

(18) f

6

it [that-John-do-m+it

31

be

VP

[read a book about h i m ~ e l f ] ~

Again, t h e WW-fronting r u l e applies on t h e i n i t i a l clause,

forming (16b).

It should be remarked t h a t we assume a theory of

r e l a t i v i z a t i o n discussed by Emnds( 119701 and Bresnen [1970j.

Within t h i s theory, it

i s

assumed t h a t t h e introductory

-

t h a t of r e l a t i v e clauses

i s

the c q l e m e n t f z e r

-

that which i n t r o -

[ 19901 f o r discussion)

,

Secondly, following b o n d s [ 19701, it i s assumed t h a t r e l a t i w i z a t i o n

i s

c a r r i e d out i n stages-, i n two p o s s i b l e ways. One p o s s i b i l i t y

i s

t h a t t h e NP t o be

r e l a t i v i z e d (which

i s

marked by WH)

i s

f i r s t pronominalized. After it has been pronominalized, t h e

WH

f r o n t i n g r u l e moves

it t o t h e f r o n t of t h e sentence, replacing; t h e c o q l e m e n t i z e r

that. The second p o s s i b i l i t y

i s

t h a t t h e NP t o be r e l a t i v i z e d

-

i s simply deleted, r e s u l t i n g i n r e l a t i v e clauses introduced

by

-

t h a t . A s an example of

a

d e r i v a t i o n of r e l a t i v e clauses, consider t h e following (from Emonds [1970]):

(20)

a.

Deep S t r u c t u r e

The

f r i e n d [ t h a t - I spoke t o W-friend] drove away. b. Removal of NP by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n , with o p t i o n a l

pronoun l e f t behind

A. The f r i e n d [ t h a t I spoke t~ WH-him] drove away. B. me f r i e n d [ t h a t I spoke tc ] drove away. c. WH-fronting i n

-

A of e i t h e r NP o r PP dominating

pronominalized

WP

A. The f r i e n d [who I spoke t o ] drove away.

B.

The f r i e n d [ t o whm I spoke] arove away. Note that t h e operation of t h e S ~ x t r a c t i o n Rule produces

s i m i l a r r e s u l t s , a s Rn~nds p o i n t s out. That i s , t h e r u l e

removes an

NP

f r m an embedded clause, leaving behind

a

pro- form, which we assume

i s

marked a s [ +PRO, +WH]. The pro-form

is

then

fronted, and replaces t h e cornplementizer

-

t h a t ; Furthermore, t h e r e a r e eases (which

we

discuss l a t e r ) where t h e m t r a c t i o n n l e removes a c o n s t i t u e n t

from

t h e embedded c l a u s e and leaves no pro-form behind, leaving a c l a u s e i n t r o - duced by the c m p l m e n t f z e r

-

t h a t .

The Extraction Rule i t s e l f must be s t a t e d as a schema, s i n c e it e x t r a c t s any major c o n s t i t u e n t of t h e embedded

sentence :

(21) Extraction Rule :

[ , [ X - A - Y I s be [ A l l =+

[ ,[

X

-

[+PRO,+WH]

-

Y

IS

be [ A ] ]

A must be a c o n s t i t u e n t ; I-iotSever, t h i s condition need not be

-

s t a t e d on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r u l e , s i n c e we r e s t r i c t movement

r u l e s i n genera? t o operating only on c s n s t i t ~ a e n t s . Hence,

t h i s general condition insures t h a t only c o n s t i t u e n t s

will

be affected.

3.2.

The

Deletion Theory. Another a n a l y s i s of pseudo-

$

cleft

sentences which has been proposed r e c e n t l y is t h a t of Bath and Peters [ 19681 and

J,

R.

Ross' [ c l a s s l e c t u r e s ] , which we r e f e r t o a s t h e Deletion Theory. The e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of

t h i s theory is t h a t t h e predicate,positi.on

i s

f i l l e d

i n

deep s t r u c t u r e with a f u l l sentence, a p o r t i o n of which must b,e'

deleted t o leave behind t h e focus c o n s t i t u e n t . For example,

consider t h e following deep s t r u c t u r e :

4 2

A

/*

be t h e t h i n g NP As3

A

i t

I

John V

A

I

"P

NP

read

s m e t k i n g

John

I

V

A

I

-25=.

r e a d

a

book about himself In t h i s a n a l y s i s , t h e r e

is

an

i n i t i a l bound r e l a t i v e (with t h i n g a s

i t s

head), with an MP dominating a sentence i n focus p o s i t i o n , The r u l e which f o m s t h e pseudo-cleft

is

a d e l e t i o n

3

r u l e ,

which

d e l e t e s a l l elements of S which

a r e

i d e n t i c a l 2

with t h e non-pro-dorm elements of

S

.

&ch and Peters s t a t e

t h e rule thus [ 1968, p.

$1

: t h e t h i n g t h a t X

Y

IS

A w be it

#

l S

X' NP

Y ' ] ~

#

L J

-EJw

Ib

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 9 where: 2 = 6 3 = 8

3

I n t h e c a s e of

(22),

the i t e n s John and

-

read of S a r e deleted

2

under i d e n t i t y with t h e s e items i n S

.

We w i l l discuss t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t s of t h e ~ x t r a c t i o n and Deletion theozies

in

s e c t i o n

6.

The

point t o be made h e r e

i s

t h a t t h e r e

i s

good motivation f o r

a

transformational theory of pseudo-cleft sentences which meets condition

(7)

(i.

e. which incorporates i n t o t h e pseudo-cleft deep s t r u c t u r e t h e phrase marker f o r t h e corresponding non-clefted sentence),

and t h a t both t h e Extraction and ~ e l e t f o n theorkes meet t h i s

condition.

4.

Pseudo-CPe£t Sentences a s Base-Generated S t r u c t u r e s

We have attempted t o show t h a t e theory

~f

pseudo-cleft sentences must a l l m i f o r a transformational d e r i v a t i o n s f

t h e sorts d i s c w s e d i n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n . W e w i l l point out h e r e t h a t pseudo-cleft sentences have a l s o e second source within t h e grammar, and t h a t t h e r e

is no

non-ad hoc

way

of

\

preventing pseudo-cleft sentences

frm

deriving from t w o

sources. We r e f e r h e r e t(4 pseudo-cl&ft sentences a s base- generated constructions.

Among t h e copula constructions i n English, t h e r e are, i n

p a r t i c u l a r , c o n s t m t i o n s such a s t h e following:

(24) a.

Clerk

Kent

is

Superman.

b.

The

man I know

is

t h e man who robbed t h e bank. c. My problem i s my l a w income,

The grammar must provide a source for such sentences, and .

t h e r e i s no simpler source t h a a t h e b a s i c s t r u c t u r e

[ NP

-

be

-

MP

1.

This s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e

i s

a l s o t h e source f o r sentences such a s :

(25) a . H e i s a doctor,

b. H e is a f o o l ,

(The d i f f e r e n c e i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n between sentences such a s

(24) and ( 2 5 ) i s discussed i n Chapter 3 , )

I f constructions su:',: as (24) e r e b a s i c s t r u c t u r e s , then t h e r e i s no way t o prevent pseudo-cleft sentences

from

being generated i n t h e base; f o r example, pseudo-cleft sentences

such a s :

(26) What I cooked was t h e s p a g h e t t i .

Both underlined phrases e r e dominated by t h e node

MP,

and can appear

i n

p o s i t i o n s where any

MP can.

I n p a r t i c u l a r , f r e e

t

relatives

such

as

t h e i n i t i a l c l a u s e of (26) appear

i n

a l l

NP

environments :

34

b.

What John cooked was believed t o have be& eaten by B i l l .

c. What he cooked

was

lumpy end cold. d. What

I

threw out was what John cooked.

Therefore, i f t h e base contains the expansion [

NP

-

be

-

NP

1,

then pseudo-cleft sentences a r e generated by t h e base. 8 This s i t u a t i o n r a i s e s c e r t a i n questions a s t o

how

deviant sentences a r e t o be blocked. Compere, f o r example,

t h e following two sentences, both of which s ~ u l d be s y n t a c t i -

c a l l y generated by t h e base s t r u c t u r e [

NP

-

be

-

NP

1:

(28) a . What I cooked yesterday was Hmingway's

f a v o r i t e I t a l i a n dish.

b. *What I cooked yesterday was Hemingway

'

s

suicide. We ask, then, how sentences such as (28b)

ere

t o be blocked. Within a t r a n s f o n n a t i s n a l derivation, of course, sentences

such a s (28b) could not b e generated, s i n c e (28b) would con- t a i n i n i t s deep s t r u c t u r e a phrase marker f o r t h e deviant sentence;

(29)

*I

cooked ~emingway

'

s

suicide.

Because of v i o l a t i o n s

i n

s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t ions, sentences

$

such a s (29), and t h e r e f o r e (28b), a r e blocked. Thus, t h e t r a n s f o m a t i o n s P a n a l y s i s r e l a t e s the' u n g r a m a t i c a l i t y of

(28b) with t h a t of (29).

35

f o r other eases, where t h e t r a n s f o ~ t i o n a l a n a l y s i s f a i l s t o capture c e r t a i n p a r a l l e l s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t a n a l y s i s f a i l s t o capture t h e s i m i l a r i t y bwtween

(28b)

and t h e following,

(30) :

(30) *The food was Herningwey's suicide.

Sentences such

as

(30), obviously, do not undergo a c l e f t i n g operation, but must be marked as deviant by t h e grammar i n any event. Furthermore, what ever mechanism marks (30) a s deviant w i l l a l s o mark (28b) a s deviant.

The deviance of (28b) and\ (30) has t o d ~ with t h e f a c t t h a t t h e semantic composition of the two

NP's

connected by t h e copula i s i n c o n f l i c t . Consider, f o r example:

(31) *The man over

there

i s

t h e woman t h a t

I.

know, We understand t h i s sentence t o be odd i n c e r t a i n ways, and we know t h a t it f a i l s a s

a

s p e c i f i c a t i o n a l ~ t a t e m e n t . ~ This

i s

due t o t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n a r i s i n g i n equating

a

noun phrase with t h e semantic information [Male) with a noun phrase with

the semantic i n f o m a t i o n [ M o r h l e ]

.

The noun phrases i n a specif i c a t i o n e l statement m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y

'

agree' i n t h e i r semantic f eaturea. S p e c i f i c a l l y ,

the

noun phrases i n guest ion

\

must be non-distinct with r e s p e c t t o a l l those semantic f e a t u r e s which play a r o l e i n s e l e c t i o n s 1 r e s t r i c t i o n s . 10

To t a k e t h e example sf

(30),

n o t e t h a t t h e NP

-

food has

36

Heminmay's s u i c i d e

has

the

s a t a n t i c marking f o r a b s t r a c t n e s s .

The d i s t i n c t i o n c o n c ~ a t e / a b s t r a c t plays a

rafe

i n s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s , and t h e r e f o r e t h e two

NPs

i n

a

s p e c i f i c s t i ~ n a l statement must agree with respect t o t h i s f e a t u r e . Since they do not i n

(30), the

sentence

i s

m l e d out.

We should emphasize

here

t h a t f e a t u r e s which play no r o l e

m

s s l e c t i o m l r e s t r i c t i o n s need not agree:

(32)

A man t h a t I saw yesterday

i s

the

man

who robbed t h e bank.

Even though one

NP

i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y i n d e f i n i t e and t h e o t h e r s y n t a c t i c a l l y d e f i n i t e , t h i s i s e semanticalfy well-formed sentence. Note, i n addition, t h a t t h e s y n t a c t i c d i s t i n c t i o n i n d e f i n i t e l d e f i n i t e plays no r o l e

in

s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s .

Returning t o sentence (28b), we now n o t e t h a t it can be

blocked i n j u s t t h e manner t h a t (30)

is

blocked. Let us assume t h a t t h e deep r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e what-clause of

(28b) i s [ I

-

cooked

-

[+PRO,+WH]

1.

Following Katz and

P o s t a l

[1964,

pp. 81-84], we assume t h a t t h e reading of a pro-form

i s

composed of whatever semantic i n f o m e t i o n it may possess a s an independent l e x i c a l i t e m , alone; with semantic information which it acquires £rans t h e c ~ n t e x t

in

which it

i s found. That

is,

Katz and P o s t a l ' propose t h a t by

a

general convention

within

t h e theory of grammar, pro-forms a c q u i r e t h e semantic information projected by t h e s e l e c t i o n a l

37

f e a t u r e s of t h e

items

with which they e n t e r

into

s e l e c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . Thus, t h e

verb

-

cook, i n (28b), p r o j e c t s onto t h e pro-form (something) t h e semantic f e a t u r e s s p e c i f i e d by t h e s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s f o r p o s s i b l e o b j e c t s of

-

cook. When t h e pro-form

i s

fronted, it

i s

thus

,marked with t h e semantic features common t o a l l p o s s i b l e o b j e c t s of t h e verb c o ~ k .

This

i s

necessary

for

reasons completely independent of t h e question of blocking pseudo-cleft sentences. For example, consider sentences such a s :

(33) a. I a t e what John cooked,

b. *I a t e what John s a i d ,

As Joan Bresnan [I9701 p o i n t s out, i n f r e e r e l a t i v e s t h e

element what must s a t i s f y s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s within t h e r e l a t i v e i . t s e l f , as well a s w i t h i n the n a t r i x sentence. Thus,

i n (33b), what

-

i s

marked

with those semantic f e a t u r e s colmon t o a l l p o s s i b l e objects of

say;

however, i n t h e matrix sen- tence t h e s e f e a t u r e s v i o l a t e t h e s s l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s of t h e verb

-

e a t . I f we assume Chat semantic f e a t u r e s a r e

associated with whole phrases, a s well a s s i n g l e l e x i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ( c f . Jackendoff [ 19661, Chomsky [ 19671, McCawPey

[1968]),

then t h e f r e e r e l a t i v e e s \ a whole t a k e s on t h e semantic f e a t u r e composition of t h e pro-form whet.

-

a h i s i n

turn

derives i t s semantic content from t h e elements wcth which i t e n t e r s i n t o s e l e c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s .

Thus,

a phrase

38 such a s what I cooked takes on, a a a whole, t h e searantic

f e a t u r e s common t o a l l possible objects of t h e verb cook.

En t h i s way,

(28b)

i s completely p a r a l l e l with (30)

s i n c e t h e

-

NPs

what I cooked end t h e food share semantic f e a t u r e s common t o

a11

possible objects of t h e verb cook. This w i l P mean, then, t h a t what I cooked w i l P be marked, a s

a

whole, as shmnantically concrete, while t h e phrase

Heminmay's s u i c i d e

i s

marked as serrntantically a b s t r a c t .

Therefore, (28b)

i s

marked

a s

deviant f o r t h e same reason a s

5.

Syntactic Motivaei~n

for

a Dual Source

So

f a r

we have seen t h a t a t r a n s f o ~ t i o n a l derivation of pseudo-cleft sentences

i s

required, and f u r t h e r t h a t the

base

a l s o generates pseudo-cleft sentences. It should be noted t h a t t h e r e

is

no non-ad hoc way t o prevent t h i s s i t u a t i o n . It would g r e a t l y c m p l e c a t e t h e grannner t o

attempt t o r e s z r i c t t h e base i n s*h a manner a s t o p r w e n t

pseudo-clef t sentences f

rm

being generated, s i n c e (a s ~ b s e t

cif) pseudo-cleft sentences a r e permissible expansions s f t h e

1

t h e r e i s some p o s i t i v e evidence f o r a dual source f o r pseudo- c l e f t sentences, i n that such a dualism accounts f o r c e r t a i n

s y n t a c t i c f a c t s .

The

s e t of f a c t s w e consider h e r e involves t h e r u l e of There- I n s e r t ion.

I f w e assume t h a t t h e r u l e sf There-Insertion (cf. 3. R.

Ross [1967], Chmsky [1967], Em~nds [1970])

i s

c y c l i c , then t h e r e i s a c l a s s of pseudo-cleft sentences which cannot be

derived i n the transformational t h e o r i e s o u t l i n e d above ( o r

any transformational theory which p o s i t s a non-clefted sen-

tence embedded i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e of t h e c l e f t e d sentence).

Consider i n t h i s regard t h e following:

t h e jack you gave

(34)

What t h e r e was i n t h e c a r was

my h a t

I n pre-copular p o s i t i o n t h e c l a u s e contains e x i s t e n t i a l

t h e r e ; however, i n post-copular p o s i t i o n t h e r e i s a d e f i n i t e

noun phrase. There

i s

no corresponding non-clefted sentence f o r (34), s i n c e There-Insertion

i s

r e s t r i c t e d t o operating on i n d e f i n i t e noun phrases:

t h e jeck you gave m e

7

(35) *There was i n t h e c a r .

my h a t

Sentences such a s (34) cannotbe derived i n e i t h e r t h e

Extraction o r Deletion t h e o r i e s , f o r d i f f e r i n g reasons.

Consider f i r s t t h e Extraction Theory. The presumed

i n t h e c a r

I f t h e There-Insertion r u l e i s c y c l i c , it m y operate on S 2

2

i f i t s conditions a r e m e t . However, n o t e t h a t i n S of (36),

t h e conditions f o r There-Insertion are not met: __I t h e r e m y not

r e p l a c e t h e d e f i n i t e noun phrase my h a t .

The

r u l e P a i l s to 1

apply and on t h e S c y c l e t h e e x t r a c t i o n r u l e may apply. The

only sentence which c ~ u l d be derived would be:

(37) What

was

i n t h e c a r

was

my h a t .

which i s t h e r e s u l t of e x t r a c t i n g t h e

NP

my h a t . However,

t h e version of t h e sentence with there, a s i n (343, could not

b e derived.

Note, by t h e way, t h a t there i s good reason t o suppose

t h a t t h e There-Insertion r u l e i s i n f a c t c y c l i c . Consider

examplea such as:

(38)

There was believed t o have

been

an explosion,

Such examples show t h a t once

-

t h e r e has been i n s e r t e d it

behaves j u s t a s any o t h e r noun with respect t o t r a n s -

f o m a t i s n s , such a s Passive and Raising. Since Passive

i s

a