• 沒有找到結果。

英文分裂句與漢語是...(的)的訊息結構: 魔戒首部曲 魔戒現身翻譯

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "英文分裂句與漢語是...(的)的訊息結構: 魔戒首部曲 魔戒現身翻譯"

Copied!
119
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)⊕ 國立中山大學外國語文學系研究所 碩士論文. 英文分裂句與漢語是...(的)的訊息結構: 魔戒首部曲 魔戒現身翻譯 English It-cleft and Chinese shi...(de) : Translation of The Fellowship of The Ring. 研究生:李佳樺撰 By Chia-Hua Lee 指導教授:徐淑瑛博士 Advisor: Dr. Shu-ing Shyu. 中華民國 97 年 7 月 July 2008.

(2) 摘要. 本文主要,透過英文小說 The Fellowship of the Rings 及其中文翻譯版本 魔戒首. 部曲,來探討英文分裂句 it-cleft 和中文是...(的)的句法和訊息結構。不同於以 往的研究認為是...(的)結構為中文分裂句且同等於英文的 it-cleft,本文指出,. 是...(的)結構應該當成述語句子(predicational sentence)來解釋,而非一般所認同 的分裂句,且不應同等於英文的 it-cleft。研究發現,中文是...(的)結構(208 句) 是英文原文 it-cleft(48 句)的五倍多。中英文數據上的差異有兩個主要原因:(一) 中文是...(的) 結構是以謂語的型式來呈現,用以表達 Lambrecht (1994, 2001) 的三種焦點句型:句子焦點,謂語焦點和論元焦點、(二)大多數的英文疑問句常 被翻成中文是...(的)結構。除了從句法結構來看,訊息結構也可以用來解釋中 文是...(的)結構和英文 it-cleft 的不同。在本文中,訊息結構可歸納為四類:(一) the stress-focused cleft 、 ( 二 ) the informative presupposition cleft 、 ( 三 ) the discontinuous cleft、(四) the emphatic cleft。研究發現,此四類訊息結構可用來解 釋 Lambrecht 的三種焦點句型,且可以解決句子焦點、主語焦點及附加語焦點三 者之間的問題。. i.

(3) ABSTRACT. This study investigates the syntactic structures and informational properties of English it-cleft and Chinese shi....(de) structure in the English novel The Fellowship of the Ring and its Chinese translation 魔戒首部曲. In previous studies, Chinese shi...(de) structure is generally regarded as a cleft sentence, and is equivalent to English it-cleft. However, in the present study, examination of it-cleft in the English novel and its Chinese shi...(de) translation supports the observation that Chinese shi...(de) structure is not equivalent to English it-cleft, but should be treated as a predicational sentence (Lambrechet 2008 and Shyu 2008). The data for analysis consist of 208 Chinese shi...(de) entries in the Chinese text and 48 English it-clefts in the English text. The results reveal that the Chinese translation contains a noticeably higher number of shi...(de) structures than the English text contains it-clefts, with the proportion of Chinese shi...(de) structures five times greater than English it-clefts (84.5% vs.19.5%). The discrepancy is ascribed to two reasons. First, Chinese shi...(de) structure is treated as a predicational sentence involving the three focus types: Predicate Focus (PF), Sentence Focus (SF), and Argument Focus (IF) (Lambrecht 1994, 2001). Second, English interrogative construction tends to be translated to Chinese shi...(de) structure. Another issue concerns how the four informational properties account for the differences between English it-cleft and Chinese shi...(de) sentence: the stress-focused cleft, the informative presupposition cleft, the discontinuous cleft, and the emphatic cleft. It is observed that these four functional properties can be comparable with Lambrecht’s three focus types, and that they can be used to determine the real focus in the scope of shi...(de), without concerning ambiguous problems among subject focus, sentence focus and adjunct focus. ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to a number of people who ever offered their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this thesis. My deepest gratitude goes first and foremost to my advisor, Professor Shu-ing Shyu, for her constant encouragement and guidance. Without her consistent instruction and patience, this thesis could not be successfully completed. Also, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my thesis committee during the oral defense: Professor Hui-Chi Lee and Professor Mei-Chi Tsai who gave me their precious comments and suggestions. I further express my thanks to my dear classmates and friends: Bao-Yu Xie, Chia-Hui Lee, Yu-Min Kang, Zhi-jie Lin, Chia-Wen She, Ya-Li Xie, Hsin-Chin Huang, Meng-Ting Xu, and Yi-Ting Tsai. They gave me great spiritual support and encouragement. Last my thanks would go to my beloved family for their loving considerations, endless support, and always being there when needed. This thesis is dedicated to all of them.. iii.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................vi. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 1.1 Studies of Cleft Construction across Different Languages.........................1 1.2 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................5 1.3 Organization of the Thesis ............................................................................6 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................7 2.1 Information Properties of English Clefts.....................................................7 2.2 Studies of Information Structure in English Clefts.....................................9 2.3 Information Structure Types.......................................................................19 2.4 Properties and Forms of Chinese Cleft ......................................................22 2.5 De’s Function in Chinese Cleft....................................................................25 CHAPTER 3 CORPUS RESULTS AND DISCUSSTION.....................................35 3. 1 Data Analysis...............................................................................................35 3. 2 Results and Discussions ..............................................................................40 3. 2. 1 Chinese shi...(de) Translations of English It-Clefts and Non-It-Clefts ......................................................................................................................41 3.2.1.1 Predicate Focus ........................................................................43 3.2.1.2 Argument Focus.......................................................................50 3.2.1.3 Sentence Focus.........................................................................54. iv.

(6) 3. 2. 2 Chinese Pseudo Clefts Translations of English It-clefts...................58 3. 2. 3 The Information Property of Chinese shi...(de) Translations with English It-Clefts and Non-It-Clefts..............................................................62 3.2.3.1 The Stress-Focused Cleft= Argument Focus ...........................66 3.2.3.2 The Informative Presupposition Cleft = Predicate Focus ........70 3.2 3.3 The Discontinuous Clefts = Sentence Focus and Predicate Focus ........................................................................................73 3.2.3.4 The Emphatic Clefts = Sentence Focus and Argument Focus.77 3.2.4 A Comparison of Chinese Translation Version A and B....................80 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION...................................................................................84 4.1 Conclusions...................................................................................................84 4.2. Pedagogical Implications............................................................................86 4.3 Limitations and Suggestions .......................................................................87 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................88 APPENDIX A (14 shi...(de) Translation of English it-clefts)..................................92 APPENDIX B (12 Identity Sentences) .....................................................................94 APPENDIX C (10 Predicational Sentence) .............................................................95 APPENDIX D (12 de shi Translation of English it-clefts) ......................................96 APPENDIX E (Sentence Focus) ...............................................................................98 APPENDIX F (Predicate Focus).............................................................................100 APPENDIX G (Argument Focus)...........................................................................109. v.

(7) LIST OF TABLES. Table 1 A comparison of information property with it-cleft ........................................19 Table 2 Surface structure of it-cleft and noncleft sentence..........................................34 Table 3 Chinese translations of English it-clefts..........................................................41 Table 4 A comparison of three focus types of Chinese shi...(de) structures with English it-clefts and non-it-clefts.....................................................................42 Table 5 A comparison of the information properties of Chinese shi...(de) sentences with that in English it-clefts and non-it-clefts..................................................66. vi.

(8) 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) 1.

(9) 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 2.

(10) “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 3.

(11) (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.. 4.

(12) (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.. 1.2 Purpose of the Study From the studies in clefts among different languages, it could be found that there was little research conducted to investigate the comparison of clefts in English and Chinese. It was also not clear that why the occurrence of Chinese shi...(de) sentences are less frequently used than English it-clefts, as found in Gundel’s (2005) study, and why Chinese shi...(de) sentences are translated as English inverted-pseudo clefts, and some are not translated as English it-clefts, as found in Hedberg’s (1999) study. Such observations lead to the proposal that there will be differences both in their syntactic structures, which represent Lambrecht’s (1994, 2001) three focus types: Predicate Focus (PF), Sentence Focus (SF), and Argument Focus (AF), as suggested by Shyu (2008), and in the information properties, which represent the functional. 5.

(13) differences. In consequence, adopting Shyu’s claim that Chinese shi...(de) sentence serving as a predicational sentence can manifest these three focus types, the present study investigates how English it-clefts and Chinese shi...(de) structures differ in terms of their frequency and distribution, with attempt to find out how these differences are in a relationship with functional properties or context in English it-clefts and Chinese shi...(de) sentences. It is hoped that such a comparison can help us further understand the differences and similarities between English and Chinese in the use of cleft construction.. 1.3 Organization of the Thesis The thesis consists of 4 chapters. The introduction provides an overview of study of cleft construction across languages, and addresses the motivation and purpose on the study of English it-cleft and Chinese shi...(de) structure. Chapter 2 will review the investigations on the syntactic structure and information properties of English it-cleft and Chinese shi....(de) structure. Chapter 3 will present the findings of the study with focusing on the analysis of English it-cleft in original text and Chinese shi...(de) structure in the translation text. Chapter 4 will provides a conclusion, including suggestions for further research.. 6.

(14) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. 2.1 Information Properties of English Clefts Following Hedberg (2000), I will use the term “clefted constituent” to refer to the matrix phrase immediately adjacent to the copula, and the term “cleft clause” to refer to the relative clause such as subordinate wh- or that-clause, as shown in (1). In an it-cleft like It was the vase that John borke, we call the vase the clefted constituent, and that John broke cleft clause. (1). It was. the vase. that John broke.. Clefted constituent. Cleft clause. The same is true of Wh-clefts, suggested by Geluykens (1988), and Hedberg (2000), since wh-cleft and it-cleft have a similar semantic structure made up of a single proposition (clause) and a semantic gap (constituent), as shown in (2) and (3). In (2), pseudo clefts can occur with cleft clause and cleft constituent in reverse order, resulting in inverted pseudo-clefts, as in (3). (2) What John broke was the vase. Cleft clause (3) That. was. Cleft constituent. Cleft constituent what John broke. Cleft clause. It is generally accepted that these terms are represented as focus and presupposition on the basis of information structure (Prince 1978, Geluykens 1988, Lambrecht 2001). This type can be comparable with Prince’s (1978) stress-focused cleft which is the most typical type of cleft. The nuclear accent is on the clefted constituent and a weakly-stressed accent on the cleft clause, as in (4). She asserts that the clefted constituent shows new, often contrastive information, and the cleft clause 7.

(15) shows known or old information that is already familiar to the intended hearer, as follows: (4) So I learned to sew books. They’re really good books. It’s just THE COVERS that ARE ROTTEN. (Prince 1978: 896, ex. 38a) In addition to the widely known type, there are other types that are paid less attention to. They are “informative-presupposition” cleft, “discontinuous” cleft, and “emphatic” type. In the “informative-presupposition” cleft, the order of given and new is reversed. According to Prince (1978), the stress is normally on the clefted clause, which bears new information to the hearer, whereas the clefted constituent is frequently old information or short. (5) is cited from Prince (1978 898, ex.41b) (5) The leaders of the militant homophile movement in America generally have been young people. It was they who fought back during a violent police...... The third type is Declerck’s (1984) “discontinuous” cleft, which has new information in both clefted constituent and cleft clause, as shown in (6). Declerck asserts that, in (6), the focus NP is strongly stressed and long, and it is not related to the previous context in any way. (6) It is through the writings of Basil Bernstein that many social scientists have become aware of the scientific potential of sociolinguistics. (Declerck: 1984:263, ex. 28b) Following Gundel’s independent notion of given and new, I label the forth type as the “emphatic” type in which the clefted constituent could be relationally given, but relationally new (Gundel 2002: 116). For example, in (7B), the pork is relationally given, since it was mentioned in the previous question, but it is relationally new to the topic, what B ordered. (7) A. Did you order the chicken or the pork? B. It was the PORK that I ordered. (Gundel, 1985) 8.

(16) As mentioned above, it is clearly that there are four types of information property of clefts. The first and second types are Prince’s “stress-focused” cleft and “informative. presupposition”. cleft.. The. third. type. is. Declerck’s. (1984). “discontinuous” cleft, and the forth type is the “emphatic” cleft, as claimed by Gundel (2002). The following section will deal with the four types of information properties in more detail.. 2.2 Studies of Information Structure in English Clefts The analyses of clefts has been the theme of a large number of studies, for example, Halliday (1976), Chafe (1976), Clark and Haviland (1977), Quirk et al. (1985), and Rochemont (1986), and it has been observed that the clefted element typically represents new information, whereas the cleft clause represents given information, though the given vs. new definitions and terminology has been addressed from a wide range of theoretical perspectives. In terms of recoverability, Halliday (1967: 204) presents information focus as “one kind of emphasis, where a speaker marks a part (which may be the whole) of a message block as that which he wishes to be interpreted as informative.” He defines “new” information as information which “the speaker presents it as not being recoverable from the preceding discourse,” given information being defined as recoverable information. Chafe (1967) proposes the definition of the given information from a cognitive perspective. He considers that given information as ‘that knowledge which the speaker assumes to be in the hearer’s consciousness at the time of utterance (Chafe 1967: 30). On the basis of Chafe’s notion of givenness, the only change Prince (1978) makes is from ‘assumes’ to ‘may cooperatively assume,’ since it is unnecessary for the speaker to think that information is in the hearer’s mind. Others define givenness from the long-term ‘shared 9.

(17) knowledge’ between speakers and hearers (Clark and Haviland 1977, 1974). Sentences (8Ba-c) are typical examples of such clefts: (8) A. Who broke the vase? B. (a) It was Mary who did it. (b) The one who did it was Mary. (c) Mary was the one who did it. In (6), it makes sense that the information in the cleft clause is given, either because it is recoverable from the immediately preceding utterance, or because it is assumed in the hearer’s consciousness in terms of the preceding question, or because the knowledge that is shared by the speakers and hearers. So far, many scholars have pointed out the correlations between the referential expression and the cognitive status is assumed in the hearer’s mind. In what follows, I will discuss the four types of information property proposed by different scholars. The first type and the second types of information property are what Prince (1978) terms the “stress-focused” cleft” and the “informative presupposition” cleft. Contrary to the traditional view of the cleft clause as conveying given information, Prince (1978) observes that the cleft clause may contain new information which may or may not be “known” to the intended hearer. The information in the it-cleft clause is defined as in (9). (9) Known information: Information that the speaker represents as being factual and as already known to certain persons (often not including the hearer) (Prince 1978: 903) In the first type, as suggested by Prince, the “stress-focused” cleft represents as new and contrastive information and the cleft clause conveys known or old information assumed to be already known to the intended hearer, as exemplified in (10) where (4) is repeated here. In (10), according to prince, the cleft clause represents 10.

(18) old information, since it is known to the speaker that something is rotten, and the clefted constituent is new in relation to the old information. (10) So I learned to sew books. They’re really good books. It’s just THE COVERS that ARE ROTTEN. (Prince 1978: 896, ex: 38a) Declerck (1984) refers to this type as “Contrastive” cleft in which the clefted constituent is strongly stressed, thus the focus NP should be strongly contrastive. In other words, the focus is new and the wh/that-clause is old information, as shown in (11). In (11), it is old information that someone DID IT and the new information is that this is A TRAMP. (11) No body knows who killed the old man. The police seem to believe the it was A TRAMP who DID IT. (Declerck 1984: 264, ex:29b) A similar view is held by Gundel (2002) who regards this type of information property as “canonical” clefts where focal stress usually falls on the clefted constituent. According to her, in the canonical cleft, the cleft clause is relationally given and the clefted constituent is relationally new, as exemplified in (12). (12) A. Did Johansen win? B. No. It was NIELSEN (who won). (Gundel 2002:118, ex.12) From the perspective of “recoverability,” Geluykens (1988) refers to this type as “filler-focus” sentence on the basis of a corpus of spoken English data. In Geluykens’s terminology, the focus of a cleft or pseudo-cleft is called the filler as opposed to the wh/that clause. In such construction the filler is focal, usually new or highly irrecoverable or contrastive, whereas the clause represents background information. Consider,. 11.

(19) (13) A: the expression Caucasian meaning white-skinned [12 intervening tone units] B: so why on earth it was the AMERICANS who started that craze I think. (Geluykens 1988:828, ex.13) So far, as we can see in the first type of information property of it-clefts, it is generally suggested that “stress-focused” clefts, (also called “contrastive” cleft, “canonical” clefts, and “filler-focus” sentence), always have strongly accent on the clefted constituent to present new or contrastive information, and a weakly-stressed accent on the cleft clause that is already known the intended hearer. Conversely, in the second type, namely, Prince’s “informative presupposition” cleft, the information in the cleft clause is not presupposed but entirely new because it is not presupposed in the reader or hearer’s consciousness, as claimed by Prince. Hence, Prince asserts that the cleft clause is used to inform the hearer of the information. For example, (14) would be awkward in canonical order, because it would seem as though the newspaper had just discovered the fact. The it-cleft “serves to mark it as a known fact, unknown only to the readership” (Prince 1978:898). (14) ‘IT WAS JUST ABOUT 50 YEARS AGO THAT HENRY FORD GAVE US THE WEEKEND. On September 25, 1926, in a somewhat shocking move for that time, he decided to establish a 40-hour work week, giving his employees two days off instead of one.’ (Prince 1978:898, ex.41a) Declerck (1984) refers to this type as “Unstressed-anaphric-focus” cleft in which the clefted constituent is not strongly stressed, but the cleft clause is normally stressed, and thus the focus NP does not have contrastive interpretation. In other words, the focus is new and the wh/that-clause is old information, as shown in (15). In (15), for Declerck, the cleft clause is entirely new, since it provides the answer to the 12.

(20) question and can not be known to the hearer at the time of hearing the utterance. (15) A. But why is everybody so interested in uranium? B. Because it is URANIUM that YOU NEED TO PRODUCE ATOMIC POWER.. (Declerck 1984:263, ex. 26). Gundel (2002) also claims that in the informative presupposition clefts, it is not necessary that the cleft clause should be both referentially and relationally given, it can also be relationally new. Gundel (2002:118) indicates that “the cleft clause is uniquely identifiable, but it is part of the comment, the new information predicated (about the topic) in the sentence. Focal accent in these constructions typically falls within the cleft clause.” Consider the following examples, taken from Gundel 2002:118, ex. (16) and (17). (16) Bush was elected, but it was Gore who won the POPULAR vote. (17) Bush was elected, but it was Gore who received a telegram from Queen ELIZABETH. Likewise, the second type of information property also resembles Geluykens’ (1988) “clause-focus” sentence in which the that/wh-clause is highlighted and irrecoverable, whereas the filler carries background information and is usually short. In (18B), the filler is recoverable, since the pronominalization he refers to the person Fuller in (18A), bur the cleft clause is irrecoverable to present a new proposition. (18) A: did you met Fuller B: yes it was he who INVITED me. (Geluykens 1988:828, ex.14) So far, we have discussed that in the second type of information property of it-cleft, the “informative presupposition” cleft, (also called “unstressed anaphoric” clefts or “clause-focus” it-clefts) involves old or anaphoric information in the clefted constituent, while bears new information in the cleft clause. 13.

(21) In opposition to Prince’s (1978: 883) claim that it-clefts and wh-clefts are not interchangeable but rather “do different kinds of work and mean different things, at least some of the time,” Declerck (1984) argues that the cleft clause in wh-clefts should be compatible with the idea of an informative presupposition it-clefts, and distinguishes the third type of information property of clefts, “discontinuous” clefts in which both the clefted constituent and cleft clause are new information. Hence he claims that all types of clefts should be regarded as either stressed-focus clefts or informative presupposition clefts, and contends that “it-clefts and WH-clefts have the same meaning and functions” (Declerck 1984: 251). To object to Prince’s claims that only it-cleft, not wh-cleft, has informative presupposition, Declerck offers examples to prove that Prince’s examples of informative presupposition can easily be replaced by wh-clefts, as in (19). For Declerck, the it-cleft in Prince’s example in (11a) can be replaced by a reversed wh-cleft in (19b). A non-inverted wh-cleft can also have the meaning of informative cleft clause, as in (20). In (20), the information in the wh-clause is new, since it provides new information to the hearer. (19)a. However, it turns out that there is rather interesting independent evidence for this rule and it is to that evidence that we must now turn. (Prince 1978:902) b. However, it turns out that there is rather interesting independent evidence for this rule and that evidence is what we must now turn to. (20) A: Those apples are good, aren’t they? B: So they are! What keeps me from eating all of them is that mother would be furious if I left none for the others. (Declerck 1984: 259) Therefore, both it-cleft and wh-cleft have the property of informative presupposition. In addition to the traditional cleft types, namely stressed-focus clefts and informative presupposition clefts, Declerck distinguishes another type of clefts: 14.

(22) “discontinuous cleft” in which the focus is strongly stressed and the clause is represented as informative presupposition, as in (20) and (21). (21) It is through the writings of Basil Bernstein that many social scientists have become aware of the scientific potential of sociolinguistics. (Declerck: 1984:263, ex. 28b) Differ from Prince’s (1978:899) informative presupposition that the focus NP is weakly stressed and “short and anaphoric, as in (19), Declerck asserts that, in (20) and (21), the focus NP is strongly stressed and long, and it is not mentioned in the previous sentence in any way. Consequently, rather than distinguishing two types of clefts, Declerck distinguishes three. So far, the information property of clefts can be divided into three types, as suggested by Declerck (1994:194): Type 1: clefts with a focus (highlighted element) that is ‘new’ and a wh-clause that is ‘given’ Type 2: clefts with a ‘given’ focus and a ‘new’ wh-clause Type 3: clefts in which both constituents represent ‘new’ information Declerck labels the three types as “contrastive clefts,” as in 8, [=Type 1], “unstressed-anaphoric-focus” clefts [=Type 2], as in (11)-(12), and ‘discontinuous’ clefts [= Type 3], as in (13), respectively. So far, the third type of information property of cleft is what Declerck terms “discontinuous” cleft in which the cleft constituent and cleft clause are both new information. Conversely, the information could be either new or given in the cleft constituent or cleft clause in the traditional clefts, namely, stress-focused clefts and informative presupposition clefts. Lastly, the fourth type of information property is proposed by Gundel (2002: 116) who claims that “something can be referentially given, but relationally new.” For example,. 15.

(23) (22) A. Who called? B. Pat said SHE called. (Gundel, 1980) (23) A. Did you order the chicken or the pork? B. It was the PORK that I ordered. (Gundel, 1985) From different perspectives, Gundel (1988, 1999) treats the traditional notion of given and new information as referential givenness/newness and relational givenness/newness. There are many representative examples of referential givenness/newness concepts, including “activation and identifiably statuses” of Chafe (1994) and Lambrecht (1994), and “hearer-old/new and discourse old/new statuses” of Prince (1992), but these scholars seldom classify the cognitive status of referents. In view of this, Gundel Hedberg and Zacharski (1993) propose the Givenness Hierarchy to clarify the controversial issue of cognitive status of referents, as suggested by Chafe 1976, 1987, Gundel 1978, and 1985 Prince 1981b, and assert the relationships between the referential status and the cognitive status by the givenness Hierarchy, as shown in the Givenness Hierarchy in (24): (24) The Givenness Hierarchy (Gundel, Hedberg and Zacharski 1993) in focus >. {it }. uniquely activated >. familiar >. identifiable >. {that,this,this N } {that N }. type referential >. identifiable. {the N } { indefinite this N} { a N }. According to Gundel et al. 1993, as in (24), there are six cognitive statuses associated with the determiners and pronouns. They interpret that a speaker can signal her assumed cognitive status to the addressee by using a particular form. Gundel (1988, 1999) regards the relational givenness and newness as the relationship between two complementary parts, topic and comment. Topic is relationally given to comment, while comment is relationally new to topic.. 16.

(24) Following Hedberg (2000), Gundel (2002) regards the cleft clause as a part of a definite description, and thus the cleft clause is always referentially given at least uniquely identifiable, and often familiar, activated and in focus. Gundel asserts that in a canonical cleft, or stress-focused cleft, the clefted constituent is typically relationally new, and the content of the cleft clause is relationally and referentially given, as in (25), which is (12) repeated here. (25) A: Did Johansen win? B: No. It was NIELSEN (who won). (Gundel, 2002:113, ex 2) Similarly, the relationship between relational givenness/newness and referential givenness/newness can also be applied to Prince’s (1978) informative-presupposition cleft. Gundel asserts that in such construction the cleft clause is uniquely identifiable but it is part of the comment with the focal accent, and is thus relationally new, as shown in (26) and (27), in which (16) and (17) are repeated here (26) Bush was elected, but it was Gore who won the POPULAR vote. (27) Bush was elected, but it was Gore who received a telegram from Queen ELIZABETH. Apart from the above properties of the two cleft constructions, stress-focused clefts and informative presupposition clefts, Gundel asserts that the relationship between referential givenness/newness and relational givenness/newness are logically independent. Hence, “something can be referentially given, but relationally new.” (Gundel 2002: 116) For example, (28) A. Who called? B. Pat said SHE called. (Gundel, 1980) (29) A. Did you order the chicken or the pork? B. It was the PORK that I ordered. (Gundel, 1985). 17.

(25) In (28), according to Gundel, if SHE refers to Pat, it is referentially given, but it is new in relation to the topic, namely, x called. Similarly, in (29), the PORK is referentially given at least activated or even in focus, since it is raised in the preceding context. But it is relationally new to the topic, namely, what B ordered. To sum up, according to the above discussion, basically, there are four types of information properties in it-cleft, as in (30) below. Type 1 and Type 2 are what Prince’s (1978) terms ‘stressed-focus’ it-cleft and ‘informative-presupposition’ it-cleft, respectively. According to Prince, the clefted element in Type 1 conveys contrastive information, whereas the cleft clause in Type 2 informs the hearer of the information. In addition, Declerck (1984) labels Type 3 as ‘discontinuous’ it-cleft,’ in which the clefted element and the clause are both new to convey a piece of new information. Last, modified by Gundel ‘independent feature of relational and referential given/newness,’ Type 4, I suggest, is considered as an ‘Emphatic cleft’ in which the given information is mentioned again to emphasize what has been chosen in the previous context. Although the cleft clause in the stressed-focus it-cleft [=Type 1] is generally given or presupposed, and the clefted constituent is typically new, the cleft clause and clefted element could also be either new or given. The following table is shown as a summarized checking list of the assertions discussed by the authors above. (30) Four clefts types of information properties Type 1: clefts with a focus (highlighted element) that is ‘new’ and a wh-clause that is ‘given’ Type 2: clefts with a ‘given’ focus and a ‘new’ wh-clause Type 3: clefts in which both constituents represent ‘new’ information Type 4: clefts in which both constituents represent ‘given’ information. 18.

(26) Table 1 A comparison of information property with it-cleft It -cleft. Author clause Given. Prince. Decklerck. Gundel. 1. SF [Type 1] (ex: 10-13). Constituent New. ˇ. ˇ. ˇ. 2. IP [Type 2] (ex: 14-18). Given. New. ˇ. ˇ. ˇ. 3.Discontinuous cleft [Type 3] (ex: 20-21). New. New. 4. Emphatic cleft [Type 4] (The independence of new/given) (ex: 28-29). Given (but relationally new). Given. ˇ ˇ. Besides these four main properties of clefts, the study of information structure can help us further understand it-cleft constructions in the following section.. 2.3 Information Structure Types Lambrecht (2001: 474-476) proposes three kinds of presupposition in discourse: “pragmatic presupposition” (also called knowledge presupposition) in which “the speaker assumes the hearer already knows or believes or is ready to take for granted at the time the sentence is uttered (the old information),” “consciousness presupposition,” in which “an entity or proposition is consciousness presupposed (C-presupposed) if the speaker assumes that its mental representation has been activated in the interlocutors’ short-term memory at the time of the utterance,” and “topicality presupposition” in which “the speaker assumes that the hearer considers it a center of current interest and hence a potential locus of predication”. It is claimed by Lambrecht that the notion of “K-presupposition” is similar to the notion “hearer-old” of Prince (1992) and to the notion “referential” or “uniquely identifiable” in the Givenness Hierarchy of Gundel et al (1993). On the other hand, the distinction between “activated” and “accessible” in the “C-presupposition” is correspondent with the notion between “discourse-old” and “inferable” of Prince (1992) and with the notion between “in focus” and “activated” of Gundel et al. (1993). However, the 19.

(27) notion of “T-presupposition” does not correspond to any system of Prince (1992) and Gundel et al. (1993). Based on the above three presuppositions, Lambrecht (1994, 2001) distinguishes three kinds of focus-presupposition or focus categories, which depends on which part of a given proposition is to be in focus in a given sentence: the predicate-focus (PF), the argument-focus (AF), and the sentence-focus (SF) sentences. The “predicate-focus” sentence relates to “topic-comment” or “categorical” function with a given argument and a new predicate. The “argument focus” sentence relates to “focus-presupposition,” “argumental,” or “contrastive” function with a given predicate and a new argument. The sentence focus structure relates to “all-new,” or “presentational” function with both a new argument and a new predicate. Lambrecht (2001) examines how the three focus categories are expressed by four languages, English, German, Italy, and French. He finds that the four languages would choose different grammatical devices, such as prosodic or syntactic change, and cleft constructions, to express their own meanings. The example of the predicate-focus (PF) sentence, also called topic-comment type, is illustrated in (31) (S stands for “subject,” V for “verb or verb phrase,” italics for prosodic prominence). Lambrecht points out that in (31) the four languages show similar syntactic and prosodic structure of PF sentences. The topic “foot” precedes the focal predicate “HURTS.” Thus the PF category is regarded as the UNMARKED focus category both in distribution and semantics. (31) The predicate-focus (PF) sentence Context: Have you recovered from your accident? How’s your foot and your knee? a. English: SV My foot still HURTS (but the rest if okay).. 20.

(28) b. German: SV c. Italy. Mein Fuss tut immer noch WEH (aber son st geht es). : SV. Il piede mi fa ancora MALE (ma il rest ova bene). d. French : SV Mon pied (il) me fait encore MAL (mais le reste ca ca). According to Lambrecht, the argument-focus (AF) sentence, also called argumental or contrastive sentence, illustrates the most common type of information structure, which is parallel to the stress-focused cleft. The cleft element represents new information whereas the cleft clause conveys old information. Unlike the PF in (31), for him, AF does not exhaust the possibilities in different languages, since alternative structures could be used to present the same meaning, as in (31a) and (32c). It-cleft is optional in English and Italian, but obligatory in French. (32) The argument-focus (AF) sentence Context: Is your knee hurting? a. English: SV/It-cleft No, my FOOT hurts. / No, it’s my FOOT that hurts. b. German: SV Nein, mein FUSS tut weh. c. Italy : VS / It-cleft No, mi fa male il PIEDE. / No, e ill PIEDE che mi fa male. d. French: It-cleft Non, c’est mon PIED qui me fait mal. As noted by Lambrecht (2002:507), sentence focus (SF), also called all-new, or presentational sentence, is used to “introduce either new entities or new situations into a discourse,” in which the focus is placed on both subject and the predicate. Like the AF sentence in (32), the SF sentence does not exhaust the possibilities in the four languages, as in (33b) and (33c). Have cleft sentence is optional in Italian, but obligatory in French to convey the same meaning.. 21.

(29) (33) The sentence-focus (SF) sentence Context: Why are you walking so slowly? a. English: SV MY FOOT hurts. b. German: SV / OVS Mein FUSS tut weh. / Mir tut ein FUSS weh. c. Italy : VS / HAVE cleft Mi fa male un PIEDE. / Ho un PIEDE che mi fa MALE. d. French: HAVE cleft J’ai mon PIED qui me ait MAL. According to the above discussion, we know that “grammars have special devices to mark the focus articulation of sentences whose information structure deviates from the unmarked predicate-focus type, that is sentences with either argument-focus or sentence-focus articulation”(Lambrecht 2001:487). In addition, it is also observed that Lambrecht’s (2002) three focus types can be compatible with the four function types of clefts: stress-focused clefts, informative presupposition cleft clefts, discontinuous cleft clefts, and emphatic clefts. This issue will be discussed in section 3.2.3.. 2.4 Properties and Forms of Chinese Cleft The above sections deal with the information structure of English cleft sentences. The following sections will turn to the investigation of the syntactic structure of Chinese cleft sentences. In Chinese, the definitions of the two words shi and de in the cleft sentence vary greatly from different perspectives. The Chinese word shi in a cleft sentence has been treated as a focus marker (Teng 1979, Chan 1990, Zhu 1997, Lee 2005, Shyu 2008), an adverb, (Huang 1982), a verb of assertion (Tang 1983), or a copula (Li and Thompson 1981, Ross 1983, Li Chiu-Ming and Li 1994). 22.

(30) A number of linguists regard shi as a copula verb which is similar to BE in English clefts (Chiu-Ming and Li 1994; Li and Thompson 1981; Teng 1979). They assert that if shi in cleft sentences is indeed treated as a copula verb, Chinese and English cleft sentences might have the same structures, as shown below. (34) a. It + be + Focus + that/who-Cl b. shi + Focus (subject here) + zero-Rel.M + Rel.Cl. (Li Chiu-Ming and Li 1994:55) Li Chiu-Ming and Li (1994) suggest that the structure in (1b) is equivalent to the structure of English cleft sentence, as illustrated in (1a). They assert that the focused constituent, the subject, is introduced immediately by the copular verb, followed by a relative clause. The difference between Chinese and English cleft sentences is that Chinese cleft sentences do not need a dummy subject ‘it’ and an overt relative pronoun in front of the relative clause while English do. However, the copular analysis of shi is questioned by Teng (1979), Zhu (1997), and Choi (2006) for two reasons. First, Zhu (1997) claims that unlike English cleft sentences, in which the focused element always move to the fixed position following BE, as in (35a), shi in Chinese cleft sentence is put immediately before the focused elements, relatively freely, as in (35). (35) a. Shi wo zai gongyuan-li zao-dao nide gou de. SHI I at park-in find-ASP your dog DE ‘It was me who found your dog in the park.’ b. Wo shi zai gongyuan-li zao-dao nide gou de. I SHI at park-in find-ASP your dog DE ‘It was in the park that I found your dog.’ c. Wo zai gongyuan-li shi zao-dao nide gou de. I at park-in SHI find-ASP your dog DE ‘It was finding your dog that I did in the park.’ (Teng 1979:102-103) 23.

(31) Second, Teng (1979) and Zhu (1997) also point out that if shi in cleft sentences is a copula, the sentence can be reversible without changing the meaning, as in (36). However, they claim that shi in Chinese cleft sentences is not reversible, as in (37). When reversing the pre-and post copula elements in (37a), the sentence of (37b) would become Chinese pseudo-cleft with different meanings. (36) a. Nei-ge nuren shi Zhangsan de mama. that-CL woman BE Zhangsan GEN mother ‘That woman is Zhangsan’s mother.’ b. Zhangsan de mama shi nei-ge nuren. Zhangsan GEN mother BE that-CL woman ‘Zhangsan’s mother is that woman.’ (37) a. Wo shi zai gongyuan-li zao-dao nide gou de. I SHI at park-in find-ASP your dog DE ‘It was in the park that I found your dog.’ b. Zai gongyuan-li zao-dao nide gou de shi wo. at park-in find-ASP your dog NOM BE I ‘The one who found your dog in the park was me.’ (Teng 1979:102) Based on the above two reasons, Choi (2006) claims that Chinese and English cleft constructions are structurally different, since shi in the cleft construction is not a copula verb, and Chinese cleft sentence is a simple sentence with only one verb, instead of a complex sentence with an embedded clause in English. In consequence, rather than treating shi as a copula in cleft sentences, Chan (1990), Zhu (1997), Yariv-Laor (1999), and Choi (2006) regard shi as a focus marker to emphasize a portion of the sentence.. Hengeveld (1990) also suggests that shi is a morpheme. marking focused elements and is inserted immediately before the focused element.. 24.

(32) 2.5 De’s Function in Chinese Cleft The Chinese word de in cleft structure has a great number of definitions from different linguists. It could be treated as a past tense marker (Teng 1979, Simpson & Wu 1999), a nominalization particle (Paris 1978), a sentence-final marker for certainty or speaker’s attitude of assertion (Tang 1983, Lee 2005), or an evidentiality marker (Shyu 2008). It is noted by Paris (1978) that ‘shi...de’ construction should be treated as a matrix verb shi and a nominalization particle de. Paris distinguishes two types of shi...de construction: NP *(shi) Adj *(de), as in (38), and NP shi...de in which shi...de are compulsory when the NP is the generic or non-generic reading, as in (39a) and (39b), respectively. (38) 那個人很聰明。 ‘That person is intelligent.’ (Paris 1978:54, ex 87) (39) a. The subject NP is not generic 那頂帽子是手做的。 ‘That hat is hand-made.’ (Paris 1978:64, ex 123) b. The subject NP is generic 飛機是飛的。(Definition) ‘Planes fly/planes are for flying.’ (Paris 1978:65, ex 135) The obligatory occurrence of de can also be seen in Lee’s (2005) shi...*(de) structure with non-focus meaning, as in (40). Lee (2005) suggests that the Chinese word shi in cleft sentences has two meanings: copula shi and emphatic marker shi. The sentence final de is either regarded as a modifier marker when it appears with copula shi in the shi...*(de) structure, or as a final particle when it appears with emphatic marker shi in the shi...(de) structure. She asserts that the possibility of de omission distinguishes focus structures from non-focus structures. In non-focus 25.

(33) structures, de occurs obligatorily in shi...*(de) structure, and should be associated with headless relative clauses, rather than cleft sentences, as shown in (40).. (40) ta shi chi su *(de) he SHI eat vegetable DE ‘He is a vegetarian.’. (Lee 2005:132). On the contrary, for her, the occurrence of de is optional in shi...(de) focusstructure. Lee also asserts that the possibility of de omission could be categorized into two subgroups: subject/adjunct-focus and predicate-focus structures. The postverbal de can appear in the subject/adjunct-focus structure, but not in the predicate-focus structure, as illustrated in (41), (42), and (43), respectively.. (41) Subject-focus ‘shi..de’ shi Zhangsan zuotian qu taibei (de) SHI Zhangsan yesterday go Taipei DE ‘It was Zhangsan that went to Taipei yesterday.’ (42) Adjunct-focus ‘shi...(de)’ Zhangsan shi zuotian qu taibei (de) Zhangsan SHI yesterday go Taipei DE ‘It was yesterday that I went to Taipei.’ (43) Predicate-focus ‘shi...(de)’ * Zhangsan zuotian shi qu taibei de Zhangsan yesterday SHI go Taipei DE ‘*It was going to Taipei that Zhangsan did yesterday.’ (Lee 2005:135) In addition, it is claimed by Lee that predicate-focus structure can be divided into two subtypes according to the acceptance of occurrence of de: stative-predicate and dynamic-predicate focus structures. De occurs obligatorily in a stative-predicate focus structure but it cannot occur in a dynamic-predicate-focus sentence, shown as (44) and (45). Therefore, Lee (2005) asserts that de plays a dominant role in the. 26.

(34) shi..de structure, and it cannot be treated as merely an optional element.. (44) Stative-predicate Zhangsan shi xihuan Lisi de Zhangsan SHI like Lisi DE ‘It is the case that Zhangsan likes Lisi.’ (45) Dynamic-predicate Zhangsan shi da-le Lisi *de Zhangsan SHI bet-Asp. Lisi DE Zhangsan did beat Lisi.’. (Lee 2005:163, ex59a,b). Likewise, the appearance or disappearance of de can be seen in both cleft and noncleft structures suggested by Paul and Whitman (2001, 2004). As for cleft constructions, in the first pattern, when both shi and de are both present, the focused constituent is the immediate constituent following shi, resulting in the subject and adjunct focus reading, as in (41) and (42) above. In the second pattern, sentence initial bare shi without de results in the entire proposition reading, as in (46) or the subject focus reading with phonological stress, as in (47).. (46) Shi xia yu. le,. bu pian ni.. (Lu et al. 2000:500). SHI fall rain PERF NEG trick 2SG ‘It really is that it’s raining, I kid you not.’ (47) Shi Aku he Xiao-D he – le hongjiu (Tsai Wei-Tian 2004:00-100) SHI Akiu and Xiao-D drink-PERF red wine ‘It’s Akiu and Xiao-D who drank red wine.’ There are two types of noncleft structures suggested by Whitman and Paul. The first pattern is “propositional assertion” with both shi and de but no focused element after shi, as in (48). The second pattern is “sentence-medial bare shi” without de resulting in focus association reading, as in (49a, b). Any constituent following shi can be focused. 27.

(35) (48) Ta shi gen ni kai wanxiao de 3SF SHI with 2SF open joke DE ‘It is the case that) he was joking with you.’ ‘He was just joking with you that was what he was doing.’ (Chao’s translation 1968:296) (49) a. Ta shi zai Beijin xue yuyanxue Ø, 3SG SHI at Beijing learn linguistics bu shi zai Shanghai xue (yuyanxue) NEG SHI at Shanghai learn linguistics ‘He studies linguistics in Beijin, not in Shanghai.’ b. Ta shi zai Beijing xue yuyanxue Ø, 2SG SHI at Beijing learn linguistics bu shi zai Beijing xue fawen NEG SHI at Beijing teach French ‘He studies linguistics, not French, in Beijing.’ (Whitman and Paul 2007) The above discussion shows that the Chinese shi...(de) structure can be regarded as either cleft constructions or non-cleft constructions in terms of the possibility of de. However, contrary to the traditional view that the final marker de can be an optional element in shi...(de) structure as claimed by Lee (2005) and Whitman and Paul (2007), Shyu (2008:2) suggests that de should be an obligatory element for “attributing property to and predicating with the verbal nominal and the clause, respectively,” and serve as an “evidentiality marker” connected with the speaker’s asserted utterance, inference, or belief. For Shyu, the concept of evidentiality marker is in accordance with the “situational de” of Chao (1968), “affirmation mood” of Zheng et al. (1992), and the “propositional assertion” of Paul& Whitman (2007), as in (50).. (50) Zhangsan shi han ni kai-wan-xiao de Zhangsan SHI with you open-joke DE ‘He was just joking with you that-was-what-he-was-doing.’ (Chao’s translation 1968: 296) 28.

(36) Based on Declerck’s (1984) distinction of specificational reading of it-clefts from the predicational it-clefts, Shyu (2008) considers that Chinese shi...de, in addition to the identification function of focus, strongly prefers predication reading of it-clefts. For her, Chinese shi...de (with de) can express three meanings: property-denoting sentences, as in (58), predicate focus, as in (59), and subject or adjunct focus, as in (62i)-(62iii). As for Chinese shi....(*de) (without de), similar to Whitman and Paul’s (2001, 2004) focus association type, any constituent, including the cases of subject, adjunct, or verb, following shi can be focused. For this, Shyu (2008) casts doubts on the previous claims that Chinese has it-cleft made up with shi...(de) structure, and contends that Chinese shi...(de) cleft construction can not be parallel to English it-cleft, but is regarded as a predicational sentence (Lambrecht 2008). The way to express the specificational cleft is by the means of Chinese pseudo cleft with de shi structure, as in (21b) below. Therefore, she questions the existence of Chinese it-cleft with the following problems, and then resorts to Lambrecht’s (1994, 2001) three focus types: Predicate Focus (PF), Sentence Focus (SF), and Argument Focus (AF) to account for the shi...(de) structure, which should be considered as a predicational sentence with an optional emphatic marker shi. First, Shyu raises a question regarding Lee’s (2005) observation that the obligatory appearance of de can turn a dynamic predicate into a stative predicate, as in (17). According to Shyu, (52) has the property of cultivating land which is predicated with the subject ta ‘he,’ meaning He is a farmer. But for Shyu, why the active verb. 來 ‘lai’ in (51) can occur with an adjunct 從中國 ‘cong Zhonggo’ in Chinese shi...(de) structure, whereas cannot change into a stative verb and stay alone in Chinese shi...(de) structure, as in the ungrammatical sentence (53a). In addition, Shyu further points out why the verb phrase 喜歡看電影 ‘xihuan kan dianying’ can change into a stative verb with (53b-i) reading in Chinese shi...(de) structure, rather than with 29.

(37) the it-cleft reading in English, as in (53b-ii).. (51) Ta shi cong Zhongguo lai de. (Chao 1968:719; Paris 1979:112) He SHI from China come DE ‘It is from China that he has come.’ (52) Ta shi zhongtian de. he SHI cultivate-paddy field DE ‘Lit: (What he does) is cultivating land./ He is a farmer.’ (53) a. *Ta shi lai de. he SHI come DE ‘*It is coming that he did.’ b. Zhangsan shi xihuan kan dianying de. Zhangsan SHI like see movie DE (i) ‘It is true that Zhangsan likes to see movies.’ Lee (2005: 203) (ii) ‘*It is loving to see movies that John does.’ Second, for Shyu, the longstanding problem why the object cannot be cleaved in Chinese shi...de pattern, as in the ungrammaticality of (54a), but can only be cleaved in Chinese de shi pattern, as in (54b) still remains unanswered. It is noted by Shyu that the identification cleft is manifested by Chinese pseudo cleft.. (54) a. *Zhangsan he shi putaojiu de. Zhangsan drink SHI wine DE ‘It was wine that Zhangsan drank. b. Zhangsan he de shi putaojiu. Zhangsan drink DE SHI grape-wine ‘What John drank is wine.’. (Shyu 2008). Shyu further elaborates that English it-clefts like (55) should be viewed as Chinese de shi pattern with VP focus reading, as in (56), instead of shi...de pattern with adjunct focus reading, as in (57i) or proposition assertion reading, as in (57ii).. 30.

(38) (55) (56). It was writing a book that John did during the break. Zhangsan fangjia zuo de shi [xie yiben shu]. Zhangsan have-holiday do DE SHI write one-CL book ‘What Zhangsan did during the break was writing a book.’ (57) Zhangsan shi [[fangjia de shihou] xie le yi-ben shu] de. Zhangsan SHI have-holiday Gen time write Asp one-CL book DE (i): ‘It is during the break that Zhangsan wrote a book.’ (ii): ‘It is the case that Zhangsan wrote a book during the break.’ (Shyu 2008) So far, Shyu asserts that de as an evidentiality marker is an obligatory element in the shi...(de) structure, and contends that Chinese shi...(de) structure is not equivalent to English it-cleft, since it is considered as a predicational sentence (Lamrecht 2008) similar to Lambrecht’s three focus types: SF, PF, and AF. In the light of Lambrecht’s three focus types, it is denoted by Shyu that shi...(de) pattern denotes “speaker’s presupposition relevant to the assertive proposition via the demonstrative/deitic grammatical function and the speech act evaluative/evidential function of de” (Shyu 2008:8). As regards the predicate focus, Shyu distinguishes two types of predicate focus: “property-denoting” predicate focus and “proposition assertion.” In the property-denoting predicate focus, as in (58), Shyu suggests that Zhong-tian-de should be equated with predicative nominals, with individual-level or generic reading, attributing the property of cultivating land, contrary to Lee’s (2005) headless relative analysis of predicate meaning He is a farmer. (58) Zhangsan shi zhong tian de. Zhangsan SHI cultivate land DE ‘Zhangsan is a famer.’ On the other hand, the proposition assertion has two functions. First, according to Shyu, the emphatic marker shi “affirms and asserts the proposition.” Second, the evidentiality marking de can not only predicates with the pre-shi subject but also 31.

(39) relates to previous inference or event. That is, the speaker’s utterance or belief can be traced back to his personal experience or to a familiar context known to the hearer. Consider (59) where (50) is repeated here:. (59) Zhangsan shi han ni kai-wan-xiao de Zhangsan SHI with you open-joke DE ‘He was just joking with you that-was-what-he-was-doing.’ (Chao’s translation 1968: 296) With regard to the sentence focus (SF) sentence, cited from Lambrechet (2002), Shyu considers that the sentence-focus (SF) sentence is used to bring new entities or new situation into a discourse. Therefore, for her, both the subject and predication are placed with accents in (60c,d) repeated here to convey a new proposition.. (60) The sentence-focus (SF) sentence Context: Why are you walking so slowly? a. English: SV MY FOOT hurts. b. German: SV / OVS Mein FUSS tut weh. / Mir tut ein FUSS weh. c. Italy : VS / HAVE cleft Mi fa male un PIEDE. / Ho un PIEDE che mi fa MALE. d. French: HAVE cleft J’ai mon PIED qui me ait MAL. A similar case can be seen in Chinese, as in (61). Shyu indicates that (61B) is a sentence focus (broad focus), since it is changed from a non-shi...(de) event predicate focus (narrow focus). This explains that sentence focus in shi...(de) structure do carry a new proposition, rather than a presupposed information, as suggested by Shyu. (61) A: Ni zai ban-gong-shi-li gan-shenme? 你在辦公室裡幹什麼?... You at office-in. do-what. "What were you doing at the office?" B:Laozhang ba wo suo zai wu-li de…老張把我鎖在屋裡的--Yuan (2003) 32.

(40) Old Zhang BA me lock at room-in DE "Old Zhang locked me in the room." As for the Argument focus (AF), Shyu asserts that the emphatic shi can either occur before the subject or the adjunct at random, as in (62i) with subject reading, (62ii) with temporal adjunct, and (62iii) with the source adjunct, taken from Shyu (2008: 20). However, she points out that sentence (62) is not equivalent to English argument focus, since it is ungrammatical in the specification reading, as in (63b) (62) (shi) Zhangsan (shi) zuotian (shi) cong Meiguo zuo feiji lai Taiwan de. Zhangsan SHI yesterday SHI from U.S.A. take plane come Taiwan DE. ‘(The case is that… (i) ZHANGSAN came from the USA to Taiwan by plane yesterday. (ii) Zhangsan came from the USA to Taiwan by plane YESTERDAY. (iii) Zhangsan came FROM the USA to Taiwan by plane yesterday.’ (63) a. Zhangsan shi zuotian cong Meiguo zuo feiji lai Taiwan de. Zhangsan SHI yesterday from USA take place come Taiwan DE = (The case related to Zhangsan is that) Zhangsan came back ….’ b. *It is yesterday, from the USA, by plane that Zhangsan came back to Taiwan.. (Shyu). In addition, Shyu raises a question that when the emphatic marker shi occurs before the subject, the subject focus and the sentence focus are easily confused, as illustrated in (64), taken from Li et al. (1998) and Yuan (2003:8), and (65), taken from Lambrecht (2001: 470). For Shyu, (64) is considered as a sentence focus, whereas (65) a subject focus. In (65), the preceding marker ‘it was’ marks the subject focus in a canonical sentence Your husband paid for that. (64) A:馬林生在外屋把夏青叫住,問她:"馬銳在學校到底表現怎樣?"…馬銳 紅腫著眼滿臉是淚地衝出來,…衝夏青嚷:"去!去!誰用你在這兒多嘴!" B: “Shi wo jiaozhu ta wen ta yi-xie qingkuang de. Ni yao gan shenme?” SHI I call-stop her ask her some situation DE. You want do what? 33.

(41) ‘(The case is that) I called her and asked her some questions. What do you want?’ 是我叫住她問她一些情況的,你要幹甚麼?" (65) It was your husband paid for that (Delahunty 1982: 52). According to previous discussion, the surface shi...(de) structure can be summarized as in Table 2. Generally speaking, Chinese shi...(de) structure could be treated as cleft construction or noncleft construction depending on the possibility of de, as noted by Lee 2005, Whitman & Paul 2007, But for Shyu (2008), Chinese shi...de, unequaled with English it-cleft, is merely a predicational sentence in which the evidentiality de can not be omitted, since shi...de can manifest Lambrecht’s (1994, 2001) three focus types: Sentence Focus (SF), Predicate Focus (PF), and Argument Focus (AF). It is noted by Shyu that it-cleft constructions can only be represented by Chinese pseudo cleft in ‘de shi’ structure.. Table2. Surface structure of it-cleft and noncleft sentence Lee (2005). Whitman & Paul Shyu (2008) (2001, 2004). Cleft Noncleft. Shi...(de) Shi...*(de). Shi....de. —. Shi.... —. Shi...(de). Shi...de. Shi.... (Shi)...de. 34.

(42) CHAPTER 3 CORPUS RESULTS AND DISCUSSTION. 3. 1 Data Analysis In order to compare English it-clefts and Chinese shi...(de) structures, the present study examines the Tolkien’s novel The Fellowship of the Ring and its Chinese translation, 魔戒首部曲, translated by 朱學恆 Zhu. Xue. Heng. There. are translations of 208 shi...(de) entries in the Chinese text and 48 English it-clefts, ‘It is/was...that...,’ in the English text. The method of data analysis in this study are comprised of three phases: the analysis of 48 English it-clefts, the comparison of Chinese translation of these 48 English it-clefts, and the analysis of 208 Chinese shi...(de) structure with English non-it-clefts. First, I will start from the categories I found in the 48 English it-clefts. The categories could be NPs, PPs, ADJs, ADVs or VPs, as in (1)-(5), respectively. (1) It was the Elven-folk of gildor that told me this; and later they told me that you had left your home. (p.227) (2) I know where he comes from. It’s from Hobbiton that this here black rider comes, unless there’s more than one. (p.100) (3) It is wonderful that Elrond, and Glorfindel and such great lords, not to mention Strider, should take so much trouble and show me so much kindness. (p.294) (4) ‘It is by our own folly that the Enemy will defeat us,’ cried Boromir. (p.524) (5) It was decided that Aragorn and Legolas should at once go forward along the shore, while the others remained by the boats. (p.512) Second, in order to understand how English it-clefts are translated as Chinese shi...(de) structures, the 48 English it-clefts are compared by their Chinese translation to find out if there is any difference in their syntactic structures and informational properties. It is observed that these 48 English it-clefts can be translated and classified 35.

(43) into the following four categories of Chinese structures. The first category refers to the widely known “shi...(de)” structure with the number of 12 cases (See Appendix A) which can be an NP1 (subject or sentence) focus, a predicate focus, a adverb focus, or an adjunct focus, as in (6b)-(9b), respectively. (6) a. It was the Elven-folk of gildor that told me this; and later they told me that you had left your home. (p.227) b. 是個叫吉爾多的精靈告訴我這些事情的;稍後,他們告訴我你已經 離開了老家...」(p.258) (7) a. It was the sound of water that Merry heard falling into his quiet sleep: water. streaming. down. gently,. and. then. spreading,. spreading. irresistibly...(p.168) b. 別害怕!一覺到天亮吧!別擔心晚上有異聲喧鬧!」然後他就又睡著 了/梅里的夢中則是出現了水聲:那潺潺的流水悄悄地擴散,似乎將 整個房子吞没入一個深不見底的池子中,....。(p.195) (8) a.’ It is by our own folly that the Enemy will defeat us,' cried Boromir. (p.524) b.「魔王也是藉著我們的愚行來擊敗我們,」波羅莫大喊著: 「這讓我好 生氣!愚蠢!」(.579) (9) a. I wonder where he comes from....’I know where he comes from. It’s from Hobbiton that this here black rider comes, unless there’s more than one. And I know where he’s going too. (p.100)’ b.「請容我插嘴,」山姆突然道:「我知道這傢伙哪裡來的。除非這樣 的騎士不只一名,否則他一定是從哈比屯來的,我還知道他要到哪 裡去。」(p.118). The second category is defined as the “identity sentence” with the number of 10 instances (See Appendix B), which can only be a complex NP, a noun composed of a relative clause, such as (10b)-(12b).. 1. Note that example (6) could be either a subject focus or a sentence focus in accordance with a given context. I will discuss the new/given information in section 3.2.3. 36.

(44) (10) a. 'Nor is it now, I will swear,' said Boromir. It is a lie that comes from the Enemy. (p.344) b.這是魔王散播出來的謠言。 (11) a .But it was not a tale that any hobbit liked to listen to, even by a comfortable fireside far away. (p.172) b.這也不是個適合打發時間的輕鬆故事。 (12) a. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. b.相較於索倫大人的善意,這實在是件小事,對你們來說也只是舉手 之勞。(p.357) The third category is what Declerck (1984) terms the predicational2 sentence, which is merely predicated with some property of the subject. 12 out of 48 Chinese translations of English it-clefts are realized as the predication sentence without shi...(de) structure, including ADJs, VPs, and ADVs, as in (13b)-(15b), respectively (See Appendix C).. (13) a. ‘Splendid!’ said Frodo. ‘It is wonderful that Elrond, and Glorfindel and such great lords, not to mention Strider, should take so much trouble and show me so much kindness.’ (p.294) b.「太好了!」佛羅多說:「愛隆和葛羅芬戴爾這些偉大的人物,更別 提還有神行客,竟然都願意為我這麼一個微不足道的傢伙大費周 章,這真是太榮幸了。」(p.329) (14) a. It was decided that Aragorn and Legolas should at once go forward along the shore, while the others remained by the boats. (p.512) b.天色漸明,大霧稍稍退去了一些。 眾人一致決定亞拉岡和勒苟拉斯 必須先上岸,其他人則留在船上。(p.566) (15) a. It was with a heavy heart that Frodo saw Aragorn and Legolas climb the steep bank and vanish into the mists; (p.513) b.佛羅多心情沈重地看勒苟拉斯和亞拉岡爬上陡峭的岸邊,消失在迷霧 中;但是,事實證明他是過慮了。 (p.567). 2. Even if category 1 and 3 overlap with focused adverb, such as (8b) and (15b), the main difference between the two types is that category 1 can only be translated with shi...(de) structure, whereas category 3 can not. 37.

數據

Table 1 A comparison of information property with it-cleft ........................................19  Table 2 Surface structure of it-cleft and noncleft sentence..........................................34  Table 3 Chinese translations of English it-cleft
Table 1 A comparison of information property with it-cleft
Table 4 A comparison of three focus types of Chinese shi...(de) structures with English  it-clefts and non-it-clefts
Table 5 A comparison of the information properties of Chinese shi...(de) sentences with  that in English it-clefts and non-it-clefts

參考文獻

相關文件

Let us emancipate the student, and give him time and opportunity for the cultivation of his mind, so that in his pupilage he shall not be a puppet in the hands of others, but rather

In Chapter 2, this research first briefly introduces different kinds of international classifications of service trade, and then presents the definitions of service industries

Under the pressure of the modern era is often busy with work and financial resources, and sometimes not in fact do not want to clean up the environment, but in a full day of hard

Last but not least, a summary of the structure and characteristics of Venerable Master's thoughts of Humanistic Buddhism is presented to describe how Humanistic Buddhism, as

“Some ‘pictures’ are not really pictures, but rather are windows to Plato’s heaven.”,見 Philosophy of Mathematics — An Introduction to the World of Proofs and

However, due to the multi-disciplinary nature of this subject, schools may consider assigning teachers with different expertise to teach this subject at different levels (S4, 5

Expecting students engage with a different level of language in their work e.g?. student A needs to label the diagram, and student B needs to

• Content demands – Awareness that in different countries the weather is different and we need to wear different clothes / also culture. impacts on the clothing