CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Studies of Cleft Construction across Different Languages
Although cleft constructions are attested in different languages like English, Nowegian, Spanish, and Swedish (Johansson 2001, Pinedo 2000, and Gundel 2002, 2005), its frequency and use are not equivalently equal. It is shown that the occurrence and distribution of different types of cleft constructions differ greatly among these languages.
In her research on clefts in languages like English and Norwegian, Gundel (2002) has shown that clefts are used more frequently in Norwegian original text,
Jostein gaarder’s Sofies verden, than in its English translation version, Sophie’s World.
The data reveal that there are 32 clefts found in the first 78 pages of Sofiew Verden, whereas only 11 clefts found in its English translation of these 78 pages.
In her follow-up study that investigates the frequency and distribution of clefts in English original texts and its Norwegian, Spanish, and Chinese translation (Gundel 2005), as shown in (1).Gundel points out that clefts are more frequently used in Norwegian than in English and more frequent in Spanish, with the frequency hierarchy Norwegian > English > Chinese > Spanish. While 14 out of 19 original English it-clefts are translated as Norwegian clefts, and only 5 are translated as Spanish clefts, there were no figures given for Chinese clefts in the study.
(1) a. ‘Hagrid’s late. I suppose it was he who told you I ‘d be here.
b. 是他告訴你我要到這裡來的。
c. at det var ham som fortalte dem at jeg kom hit.
That it was him REL told you that I come here.
d. que fue el quien le dijo que yo estario aqui.
(Gundel, 2005:43, ex.44)
Gundel explains that what makes this different in frequency among these languages is largely due to “a stronger tendency to map information structure directly onto syntactic structure,” (Gundel 2002:127) especially for Norwegian. In order to distinguish topic from focus explicitly, Norwegian clefts tend to “encode presupposed material in a separate constituent (the cleft clause) and to keep focal material out of subject (perhaps more generally sentence initial) position” (Gundel 2002:127). On the contrary, English cleft sentences are treated as a stylistic option used for rhetorical effect. With regard to the Chinese clefts, Gundel, as we mentioned, does not present figures for Chinese clefts, but provides a possible explanation that “Chinese prefers to encode information structural properties by topic-comment to map directly onto syntactic subject-predicate.” Still, it is unclear that why Chinese clefts are less frequently used in their English counterparts.
The finding is in accordance with the results of Johansson (2001), who investigates the frequencies and discourse distribution in English and Swedish cleft constructions, asserting that in closely related languages like English and Swedish different types of cleft constructions may differ greatly in their frequencies and discourse distribution. The database consists of three types of corpus, comparing translations from English to Swedish, translations from Swedish to English, and their original texts in both languages. Johansson indicates that English and Swedish show clear differences in the frequencies and discourse distribution of different types of cleft constructions. In their original texts, the results show that Swedish texts have a higher number of clefts than the English ones (500 vs. 234). In their translations of original texts, Swedish it-clefts are more frequent than their English counterparts, whereas both types of wh-clefts (wh-cleft, and reversed wh-cleft) are more frequent in English than in Swedish. It is suggested by Johansson that the higher frequency of Swedish it-clefts and English reversed wh-clefts is largely due to their being used as a
“cohesive device” to put continuous topics and anaphoric elements in front.
It is noticeably that 249 out of 500 Swedish it-clefts, almost a half, are translated as English noncleft sentences, as in (2) and (3). Johansson points out that the reasons why Swedish clefts tend to be translated as English noncleft are that Swedish it-clefts are less marked than English it-clefts, and Swedish it-clefts prefer to use the “cohesive device” to place highlighted subjects or anaphoric elements to the front of the sentence.
(2) a. Det är planerna på den ekonomiska och monetära unionen somsätter de tydligaste formella gränserna för 1990-talets ekonomiska politik.
‘it is the plans for the economic and monetary union that impose the clearest formal restrictions on the 1990’s economic policy.’
b. The plans for the Economic and Monetary Union impose the clearest formal restrictions on economic policy in the 1990s.
(3) a. Det är först när han förvandlas till en fiende som du inser hur oförsiktig du har varit.
‘it is only when he turns into an enemy that you realize how incautious you have been.’
b. Only when he has turned into an enemy do you realize how incautious you have been. (Johansson, 2001: 565, ex.20 and 23)
Despite Gundel (2002, 2005) and Johansson’s (2001) study, few studies concern with the comparison of clefts in English and Chinese. It has been recognized that Chinese shi...(de) structure should be treated as a cleft sentence (Paris 1979, Shi 1994, Chiu 1994, Huang 1989, Chao 1968, Simpson and Wu 2001), and be equivalent to English it-cleft (Chiu-Ming Li and Li 1994, Hedberg 1999). In opposition to the traditional view, Shyu (2008) claims that English it-cleft is not correspondent with
shi...(de) structure, and contends that shi...(de) structure should be treated as a
predicational sentence instead (Lambrech 2008). Therefore, Shyu resorts to Lambrechet’s (1994, 2001) three focus types: argument focus (AF), predicate focus(PF), and sentence focus (SF) to account for shi...(de) structure to account for shi...(de) structure in Chinese.
The only comparison of clefts in English and Chinese I found is in Hedberg’s (1999) study. Hedberg, comparing Chinese shi...de sentences with its English translation, claims that Chinese shi...de sentences are both structurally and functionally equivalent to English it-clefts. 36 out of 111 Chinese shi...de sentences colleted from a Chinese novel and newspaper articles are translated into Chinese inverted pseudoclefts, as in (4)-(5), equated with English inverted-pseudo clefts, and 75 are translated into Chinese canonical shi...de sentences, as in (6)-(8), equated with English it-clefts.
(4) a. 這是我剛才舖你的床撿到的。
b. They were what I picked up in your bed when I was making your bed.
(5) a. 醫生是救人生命的。
b. A doctor is a person who saves people’s life.
(6) a. 是 Miss Sun 領我過橋的。 (Subject focus) b. It was Miss Sun who led me to go over the bridge.
(7) a. 聽說小夫人是在美國娶的? (Preposition focus) b. Was it in America where you married your wife?
(8) a.他知道蘇小姐的效勞是不會隨便領情的。 (Adverbial foucs)
b. He knew it was not easily that one could accept any of Miss Su’s services.
(Hedberg, 1999:18, ex. 36, 37,43,45,and 47)
Nevertheless, among 75 Chinese shi...de sentences, 19 sentences are not translated into English it-clefts, like sentential, verb phrase, and verbal focus subtypes, as in (9), (10), and (11), respectively, taken from Hedberg, 1999:27, ex.49, 50, and 51.
(9) a. 是有人在書本書上看見了告訴 Bertie, Bertie 告訴我的。
b. It was the case that someone saw this word from some book and told Bertie, then Bertie told me.
(10) a. 如果沒有他的個人魅力及魄力，是不可能得如此巨大的進步的，改 革也不可能執行。
b. It was impossible to make such a big progress and carry out the reform (inRussia) without his (Yeliqin's) personal charm and boldness.
(11) a. 我是想明天搬出來的，我曾母在發神經病。
b. It is true that I would like to move back (to his mother's home), because my mother-in-law's mind is out of order now.
Though Hedberg (1999) suggests that that shi...de sentence should be equated with English it-clefts, since nearly a half shi...de sentences, as in (6)-(8) are translated into English it-clefts, it casts doubts on why some shi...(de) sentences, as in (4)-(5) are translated in English and Chinese pseudo-clefts, and still some, as in (9)-(11) are not translated into English it-clefts. In other words, there is a mismatch between what she claims and what the results reveal. This mismatch gives rise to the problem of the inequivalence between English it-clefts and Chinese shi...(de) sentences.