uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Det är något som inte stämmer - om analysen av utbrytningar (There is something wrong somewhere - on the analysis of it-clefts)
Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Languages, Department of Scandinavian Languages.
2002 (Swedish)In: Svenskans beskrivning 25: Förhandlingar vid Tjugofemte sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning. Åbo den 11 och 12 maj 2001., 2002, 272-283 p.Conference paper (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

There is something wrong somewhere

– on the analysis of it-clefts

Ulla Stroh-Wollin

The focused constituent of an it-cleft is sometimes analysed as the antecedent of the following subordinate clause, just like the head noun to an ordinary relative clause. Such an analysis would make the internal structure of the sentences in (1a–b) identical, disregarding the lexical difference between the subjects (non-refrential in a, referential in b).

(1) a. Det var Lisa som lånade cykeln. (Inte Anna.)

’It was Lisa who borrowed the bike. (Not Anna.)’

b. (Vem var det?) Det var Lisa som lånade cykeln.

’(Who was that?) That was Lisa who borrowed the bike.’

There are, however, formal grammatical differences between the two constructions, that might signal a deeper structural difference as well. (For example: whereas the antecedent of an ordinary relative clause with som ’who/which/that’ is generally nominal, the focused constituent of the cleft can have almost any categorial status.) This suspicion is supported by a semantic analysis of not only affirmative clefts, but also clefts involving a negation. In the latter case, see (2), it is not attractive to regard the focused element as the antecedent to the subordinate clause.

(2) Det var inte Lisa som lånade cykeln.

’It was not Lisa who borrowed the bike.’

With exemples like (2), it is obvious that no constituent Lisa som lånade cykeln ’Lisa who borrowed the bike’ is really identified. Thus, Lisa should not be considered to be the antecedent of the subordinate clause. Formally, although not as obvious at first sight, this also applies to affirmative clefts like the one in (1a).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2002. 272-283 p.
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-42145ISBN: 951-29-2175-8OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-42145DiVA: diva2:70046
Available from: 2007-02-05 Created: 2007-02-05

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stroh-Wollin, Ulla
By organisation
Department of Scandinavian Languages

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 193 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link