Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS
Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS
Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
F<strong>in</strong>ally, the rank<strong>in</strong>g proposed, with two pairs of overlapp<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts (NoQSubj/SF <strong>in</strong>fo<br />
<strong>and</strong> SF <strong>in</strong>fo /AFR), also accounts for the distribution found <strong>in</strong> the data for focused <strong>in</strong>direct objects<br />
(see Tableau 5). C<strong>and</strong>idate (a1) is the most common output form s<strong>in</strong>ce it does not violate any<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>t. In Tableau 6, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, the <strong>in</strong>direct object is predicted to occur <strong>in</strong> a cleft<br />
sentence s<strong>in</strong>ce leav<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong> situ violates the higher ranked constra<strong>in</strong>t SF special .<br />
QUD:Qu’est-ce que Paul a<br />
trouvé sur le coffre?<br />
SF SF special Overt-<br />
Subj<br />
NoQ<br />
Subj<br />
SF <strong>in</strong>fo AFR Faith-<br />
Syn<br />
a1. ☞ Paul a trouvé des<br />
empre<strong>in</strong>tes SUR LE<br />
COFFRE.<br />
b1. C’est SUR LE COFFRE<br />
que Paul a trouvé des<br />
*! *<br />
empre<strong>in</strong>tes.<br />
c1. SUR LE COFFRE, Paul a<br />
trouvé des empre<strong>in</strong>tes.<br />
***!<br />
d1. C’est des empre<strong>in</strong>tes<br />
que Paul a trouvé sur le *! *<br />
coffre.<br />
e1. Paul a trouvé des<br />
empre<strong>in</strong>tes sur le coffre.<br />
*!<br />
Tableau 5. Tableau for focused <strong>in</strong>direct objects realized <strong>in</strong> situ (<strong>in</strong> non-special contexts)<br />
QUD:Ce sont mes empre<strong>in</strong>tes,<br />
mais pourquoi vous me<br />
soupçonnez?<br />
a2. ☞ C’est SUR L’ARME qu’on<br />
a trouvé vos empre<strong>in</strong>tes.<br />
b2. On a trouvé vos<br />
empre<strong>in</strong>tes SUR L’ARME.<br />
SF SF special Overt-<br />
Subj<br />
NoQ<br />
Subj<br />
SF <strong>in</strong>fo AFR Faith-<br />
Syn<br />
*! *<br />
c2. SUR L’ARME, on a<br />
trouvé vos empre<strong>in</strong>tes.<br />
***!<br />
d2. C’est sur l’arme qu’on a<br />
trouvé vos empre<strong>in</strong>tes.<br />
*! *<br />
e2. On a trouvé vos<br />
empre<strong>in</strong>tes sur l’arme.<br />
*!<br />
Tableau 6. Tableau for focused <strong>in</strong>direct objects realized <strong>in</strong> a cleft (<strong>in</strong> special contexts)<br />
6. Conclusion<br />
In this paper, I have <strong>in</strong>vestigated two aspects of the c’est-cleft: its mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> its use. The<br />
data from the two experiments presented <strong>in</strong>dicate that (i) the French c’est-cleft does not<br />
semantically contribute exhaustivity to the sentence’s mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> (ii) the alternation<br />
cleft/canonical is more complex than previously considered. The exhaustivity of the cleft is<br />
attributed to its non-at-issue mean<strong>in</strong>g. I have followed a prosodic <strong>and</strong> pragmatic approach (à la<br />
Hamlaoui 2008) of the canonical/cleft non-r<strong>and</strong>om alternation, argu<strong>in</strong>g that the constra<strong>in</strong>t<br />
rank<strong>in</strong>g SF >> SF special >> Overt-Subj >> NoQSubj, SF <strong>in</strong>fo , AFR >> Faith-Syn, accounts for the<br />
realization of focus <strong>in</strong> French <strong>in</strong> various cases <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretations.<br />
*<br />
110