Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The question of form in the forming of questions: The meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives in Swedish
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism, Scandinavian Languages.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0328-2678
2019 (English)In: Journal of Linguistics, ISSN 0022-2267, E-ISSN 1469-7742, Vol. 55, no 4, p. 755-794Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper addresses the meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives (I-clefts) in Swedish. It is shown that I-clefts always relate immediately to the topic under discussion and serve to clarify a matter in relation to this topic. They are never used in out-of-the-blue contexts. I argue that I-clefts have the same information structure as typically assumed for declarative clefts: the clefted clause expresses an existential presupposition and the cleft phrase is the identificational focus of the utterance. I further argue that the implication of existence commonly associated with canonical argument questions is weaker (a conversational implicature) than the existential presupposition associated with clefts. The results from an extensive corpus survey show that argument I-clefts (who, what) constitute no less than 98% of the total number of I-clefts in my material. This frequency is linked to the presuppositional status of the cleft construction: in contexts where the denoted event is presupposed as part of the common ground, the clefted variety is the more effective choice, due to its clear partitioning of focus and ground. The ‘cost’ of using a more complex syntactic structure (the cleft) is thus counterbalanced by the benefit of being able to pose a question adjusted to the contextual requirements. As non-argument questions are typically presuppositional irrespective of syntactic form, the gain of using a cleft is less obvious – hence their infrequency in the material.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 55, no 4, p. 755-794
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics Specific Languages
Research subject
Linguistics; Scandinavian Languages
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-174515DOI: 10.1017/S0022226718000634OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-174515DiVA, id: diva2:1358600
Available from: 2019-10-08 Created: 2019-10-08 Last updated: 2019-10-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(460 kB)1 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 460 kBChecksum SHA-512
f988da6f702b395a284c68dee6f69f136c38eb5936d6c6901ae17d64655e85b9b15ec4dadffd56d6d660f8851727b8f0bce9f4a202a23ecd48f2e71f8f8874f3
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brandtler, Johan
By organisation
Scandinavian Languages
In the same journal
Journal of Linguistics
General Language Studies and LinguisticsSpecific Languages

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 1 downloads
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

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 30 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf