TwoType
sofThat
-c
l
a
us
e
Fumi
oSeki
ne
1．Introduction
ThispaperisintendedasasequeltomydoctoralthesissubmittedtotheUniversityof Birmingham (1996).Whatwillbedealtwithinthisshortarticle−twotypesofthat-clause withdifferentgrammaticalcharacters−hasatleastsomeformalsimilaritiestothes o-called contentthat-clause,oneofthemostintensivelyinvestigatedtopicsinmythesis. Oneofthesetwotypesofthat-clauseiscloselyassociatedwith,andtheotheroften wronglyinterpretedas(see,forexample,Halliday1994:272,Fig.7-17),acontentthat -clause.The firstone isa that-clauseinacleftsentence,andthesecondanadverbial that-clauseinsentencesexemplifiedbyItsnotthatwedontloveeach other.The analysiswillbeinevitablyshortandmadeinarathersummaryfashion,becausethemain purposeofthispaperisjusttoclarifyhow theseclausesaresimilarordissimilartoour contentthat-clause.
Mybasicstandpointisfunctionalinabroadsenseandmyanalysisisdata-based,with muchimportancebeingplacedontheroleplayedbycontexts,linguisticandotherwise. Ibelievethatcertainformalpropertiesofsentencescannotbefullyunderstoodwithout lookingatthecontextsinwhichthesentenceshavingthesepropertiesareembedded, althoughitmustbeaddedinhastethatIam preparedtoadmitthattherewillnotbeany absolute one-to-one correspondence found between the grammaticalstructure,the semanticstructureandthepragmaticorganizationofsentences.
2．That-clauseinthecleftsentence
Itisnotintendedheretotrytoreachevenaprovisionalanswertothewholeproblem surroundingthehighlycomplicatedstructureoftheit-cleftsentence.Theissuewillbe goneintoonlydeepenoughtopointout(A)thatTHAT usedinthisconstruction,when
lookedatfrom thepointofview oftheinterclausalrelationship,couldbetakenasa syntacticblendofrelativeandparatacticconstructionsand(B)thatoneofthemost importantaspectsofthisconstruction,thatis,itsinformationstructure,hasbeensubject togreatlymisguidedandincorrectinterpretationinmostresearches.Theconclusions which willbedrawn from thepresentanalysisare:(A)a that-clauseofthistype constitutesaclassofitsownandcannotbetakenasanotherkindofpurerelativeand (B)thetraditionalviewontheinformationstructurepertainingtothisconstructionmust bedrasticallyreviewed.
2．1．Basicsyntacticandsemanticfeaturesofthecleftsentence
Thecleftsentencetypicallytakesthefollowingsurfaceform:
Itis/was＋ X＋ that/who/which,etc.＋ Finiteclause
WhatcomesintheplaceofX inthisformulaisaconstituentofthesentencewhichhas beendisplacedfrom thatsentencebecauseitissomehow focused (therefore,called hereaftera focused element).Itispreciselythis focusing processthatsemantically distinguishestheinnerclauseofacleftsentence(calledhereaftera focusing clause) from therestrictiverelativeclause.Thecleftsentenceisusedasamostversatilestylistic devicetosignifythattheelementX ismarkedoffasthefocusofinformationfrom the restoftheclauseheadedbythat/who/which,etc.,whiletherestrictiverelativeclauseis usedtorestrictgrammaticallythesemanticscopeofitsantecedent.Toseeclearlyhow thisbasicsemanticdistinctionbetweenthetwotypesofclauseisreflectedintheir surfaceforms,theyarecomparedbelow withrespecttotheirformalsimilaritiesand dissimilarities.
Similarities
(１)Thesamekindsofgrammaticalwordscanbeusedastheinitialelementsinfocusing clausesasinrelativeclauses;i.e.that,who,which,when,where,etc.:thezero-form isalsopossible(Collins1991:35,Table3.2).Whenwhoorwhichisselectedinthe focusingclause,itmustusuallyagree,asintherestrictiverelativeclause,withthe focusedelementwithrespectto human―non-human distinction(e.g.ItwasMrs Kennedywho/ whi＊ chdrew thecrowds).
(２)Ifthefocusedelementinthecleftsentenceisanominalphrasewhichwillbepicked upasthesubjectofthefocusingclause,anagreementinpersonandnumberis usuallyinvolvedbetweenthisphraseandtheverbasinarestrictiverelativeclause (e.g.itisnottheywhoareyoungbutIwhoam old).
Dissimilarities
(１)Itisclearfrom theaboveformulathat,unlikerelativeclauses,focusingclauses cannotberealizedasnonfiniteclauses(e.g.theabsenceofreliabledatafrom which todraw conclusions).
(２)Thefocusedelementsofcleftsentencesaremuchmorevariedthantheantecedents ofrelativeclausesinregardtotheirwordclassvariety.Notonlynounphrasesbut alsoprepositionalphrases,adverbialphrasesorclausesandsometimesevenadjecti -valphrasesmaybethefocusofthisconstruction;furthermore,asonekindofnoun phrase,evenpropernamesmaybefocused(e.g.If…,thenitisSirThomasMore whom theywouldperhapschoose).
(３)Despitethefactthatasimilarrangeofgrammaticalwordsisused asclaus e-initiatingelements,thedistributionofthem betweenthetwotypesofclauseis significantlydifferent.Inthecleftsentence,itisTHAT thatdominatesthescene (accordingtoCollins,abouttwothirdsofhisexamplesuseTHAT,thoughthisfigure mustbetakenwithapinchofsaltsinceitincludesanotherkindofTHAT,aswill bemadeclearinthenextchapter3).Itisthisverypointthathasaspecialrelevance toourinvestigationathand.
(４)Theclause-initiatingelementsfunctioningasthesubjectsoffocusingclausesmaybe realizedinaverycolloquialstyleaszero-forms(e.g.Itsnoteveryonegivesupa promisingarmycareerattwenty-fiveinfavourofbeinganightflunkey).
(５)Certainelementswhichhavebeenfocusedcanfurtherbefrontedtothebeginningof a sentence asa resultofdoublethematization(e.g.He itwaswho builtSaint PaulsChurchinStokeRoadhimselfathisownexpense).
AnotherpointtobemadeclearhereisthefunctionofIT inthisconstruction.Again, contrarytoBolingersclaim (1977:71ff.),itisnotananaphoricpronoun,inthatitdoes not refertosomefactalreadybroached(p.67)”intheprecedingtext,butitisjusta slotfiller.Thisisseenfrom exampleslike1below,wherenofacthasbeenbroachedin
theprecedingtextbecause,thesentencebeingtheopeningpartofanewspaperarticle(in TheIndependent),therecannotbeanysuchtext.
１．ItwasDerRosenkavalierthatGoranJarfeltwasstagingforWelshNational Operawhenhediedin1989.
Below aresomeexampleswhich display theformalfeaturesofthecleftsentence describedabove.
２．TheVisigothsofthelowerDanubearea…wereoriginallyemployedtoregain whatisnow Spainfrom otherGermanicadventurers;butasthecollapseof Romanrulebecameimminent,theycreatedtheirownempirethere.ButRoman wayslivedon.TheVisigothswererapidlyChristianised.Aboveall,theyadopted Latin;atfirstforwriting,laterinspeech.ItistheirversionofspokenLatinthat formsthebasisoftheSpanishlanguage.
３．itwas/Norma Harleythatdid△mostofthe△TALKING( )//… /sheand
Mark△Toomyhavemade△most ofthe EN△QUIRIES( )// /but［ :］ △Mark obviously△briefedherto ask［ i:］relevantQUESTIONS( )//
(S.3.2)
４．Ａ：itwas /JOHNNY( )that stoleher m MONEY( )///whilewe were A△｛WAY( )｝in △FRANCE( ) ITHINK( )///WASN T( ) it//…
−(twomoreturns)−
Ｂ：you /spend your life△looking AFTER( ) these kids// and /they
△TURN( )ROUND( )//and/nickyour△lastPENNY( )//−− (S.2.13)
５．itsthe− /academic△STRUCTURE( )//・ /of・ theUNI△VERSITY( )//
that・ that［ ］・///WERE( )CONCERNED ( )about//(S.1.2) ６．ButwemustnotforgetthatLatin…haddifferentvarieties,justasmanyclassical
writersthemselvescould notoverlook the differencesthatwere emerging betweentheirmetropolitanwrittenusage…andthelocal…orpopular…Latin whichwastoprovidethebasisforChristianwritingsinthefollowingcenturies. ClassicalLatiniscertainlyofgreatimportanceinthehistoryofEnglish,butit
isonthespokenLatin,notofRome,butoftheImperialprovinces,thatwemust now concentrate.
７．A majorfunctionofalltownswastoraiseenoughcashtopayforthestanding armiesthatweresoessentialtothemaintenanceoftheEmpire.Itisinthese armiesthatwecanseetheconditionsforthegenesisofnew,localvarietiesof Latin.Drawingtheircomplementsfrom speakersofmanydifferentlanguages, thearmiesfosteredLatinasalinguafranca:anditislikelythatthespoken Latin ofthesoldiery boretheimprintsofnumerousmother-tongues,asa processofpidginisationoccurred.
８．ItisnotuntilwereachthetimesofDomesdaythatwefindthereandinrelated documentsacorrelationofhides,virgatesandacreswhichallowsanequation tobemade.InseveralinstancesinCambridgeshireproper,intheisleofElyand inEssexitispossibletosaythatthereckoningthenwas120acrestothehide. InpartsofWesexontheotherhandthehideseemstohavecontainednomore than40acres.
９．Thisispartoftheprocessofbeinginasubordinateposition.Itisbecausethe subordinatesaremorepowerfulthattheyimposetheirownwayofthinking(and theirlanguage)astheonlyvalidone.
In2to5,thefocusedelementsarenounphrases:morethanthat,theyarepropernames in3and4.Thenounphrasesinthefirstthreeexamplesarepickedupinthefocusing clausesasthesubjectsoftheseclausesandtheonein5astheobjectofpreposition.Both in6and7,thefocusedelementsarerealizedasprepositionalphrases;buttheirfunctions aredifferent:in6,itistheobjectoftheprepositionalverbwhilein7,itistheadjunctof theclause.In8and9,thefocusedelementsareadverbialclausesfunctioningasadjuncts asopposedto disjuncts (Greenbaum 1969).Thatinexample2,iftakeninisolation, showseverysignofbeingarelative(andsodoestheoneinexample5),butthefactthat itinthisexampleisnotananaphoricpronoun,ascanbeseenfrom itsrelationwiththe precedingtext,excludesthatreading(thisissowithexample5too).Therestofthe examplesdonothaveanyparalleluseinordinaryrelatives.
Theseexamplescanbetakenastypicalillustrationsofthecleftsentence.Theyshow thatthisconstruction hassyntactic featureswhich are simultaneously similarand dissimilartothoseoftherestrictiverelativeclause.Wheredothesedissimilaritiescome
from?Iconsiderthattheycomefrom peculiarsyntacticfunctionsofTHAT which dominatesthesceneofacleftsentenceconstruction.Thispointwillbemadecleareras aconclusionlaterinthispaper(in2.3.).Butbeforemovingontoit,Imustdealwith anotherequallyimportant(probablymoreimportantinthewholepictureofthi scon-struction)issueoftheinformationstructureoftheit-cleftsentence.
2．2．Informationstructureinthecleftsentence
Theproblem firsttobeaddressedhereisthis:whatkindofinformationisfocusedinthis construction?Contrarytotheview stillheldbymanygrammarians, itisnotonlythe informationwhichhasbeenintroducedforthefirsttimeinthetext,butalsothekindof informationwhichisalreadygivenandoftencontrastivetotheonewhichcouldhave beenconveyedbysomeothercandidateelement(s).Thisisclearfrom example4above: herethefocusedelement(i.e.JOHNNY)isoneoftheheadsofthetoneunitwitha fall ―rise.Whatismeantbytheseprosodicfeaturesisthattheinformationconveyedbythis elementisgivenintheprecedingtextandiscontrastedwithsomeotherperson(s). In fact,Johnnyhasbeenreferredtointhepreviousportionsofthisconversationas oneof these(three)kids (actuallythreebrothers),asinthesubsequenttext,oras (heis)areal viciousswine(,thatnumber),butthenameitselfappearshereforthefirsttime(hence aheavystress).ThispropernameisplacedintheslotX intheaboveformulatobeput intocontrastwithsomeothercompetingelement(s).So,thissentencecanbepar a-phrasedassomethinglikeOfthethreebrothersweretalkingabout,Johnnywastheone whostolehermoney.
Whathasbeendiscussedsofaralsoappliestoexample3.Itsonlydifferencefrom example4isthatherethefocusedelementisnotaheadofthetoneunit.So,thequestion of WhoisthisNormaHarley doesnotariseatall.Itsreferentisassumedtobeknown (extralinguistically)from thestarttoalltheparticipantsofthisconversationandmore importantlythistimeitisnotcontrastedatallwithanybodyelse.Theparaphraseofthis examplewillbe,therefore,Asexpected,NormaHarley,notanybodyelse,didmostofthe talking. Thereasonwhyshewasexpected,asamatterofcourse,todomostofthe talkingisgiveninthesubsequenttext.
Asfarassomeofourwrittenexamplesareconcerned,itseemstobecontrastive informationofthiskindwhichoftengivesthebasisoffocusing.Inexamples2and7,for instance,itisparticularlyinformationconveyedbytheirandtheserespectivelythatis
thefocusofcontrast.Withasizeableproportionofwrittenexamples,itwouldseem that thefocusedelementsarethusoftenassumedtobeknownfrom theoutsetandcontrasted tosomeothercandidate(s)whichcouldhavebeenlikewisefocused.Butwhatabout example6(i.e.itisonthespokenLatin,notofRome,butoftheImperialprovinces,…)? Strictly speaking,nothing isnew hereagain,becausetheonly candidatespoken is inferablefrom theprecedingtextascontrastedtoClassical.(Anotherreadingwillbe givenbelow.)
Putdifferently,thefocusedelementsinthesewrittenexamplesarethebearerofgiven information.Incontrast,theirfocusingclausesconveynew information,whichisoften usedasthejumpingboardforthesubsequenttexts.Example7clearlydisplaysthis patternoftheflow ofinformationaroundacleftsentence,showingthatwhathasbeen firstmentioned in thefocusing clauseisthen picked up and enlarged upon in the subsequenttext.Itseemsthat,lookedatfrom theviewpointofinformationstructure, manycleftsentencesinwrittenEnglishareusedforthepurposeexplainedsofar.
Ofcoursethispattern oftheflow ofinformation around a cleftsentenceisnot monopolizedbywrittenlanguage.Intheabovespokenexamples3and4,thefocusing clausesarerealizedwiththeirowntone-unitheadsontheintonationpatternoffall. Andthenewinformationthusintroducedthereisfurtherenlargeduponinthesubsequent texts,asisclearfrom example4.
Thepatternofinformationstructurediscussedsofarisnottheonlypossibilityina cleftsentence.Betweentheouterintroductoryandtheinnerfocusingclauses,thereexist theoreticallythreepossiblecombinationswithregardtothedistributionofgiven― new information.
Outerclause Innerclause
（Ａ） given new （Ｂ） new new （Ｃ） new given
Giventhecommunicativefunctionoflanguageonwhichthisdistributionofinformation isbased,thefourthpossibility,namelythecombinationofgiven― given,wouldseem
alogicalabsurdity,especiallyinthisconstruction.
Thepatternofinformationstructureexaminedsofarcorrespondsto Category (A) intheabovefigure.Inthiscategoryofcleftsentence,thenumberoftoneunitsinvolved inspokenexampleshasbeenmostlyone(seeagainexamples3and4).
However,ascanbeseenfrom example5,thenumberoftoneunitsinvolvedinacleft sentencecanbemorethanone.Infact,accordingtoCollinssurveyoftheLondon-Lund spokencorpus(1991:156-7),thenumberofinstancesinwhichacleftsentenceconsists ofmorethanonetoneunitfarexceedsthenumberofinstancesinwhichitisrealizedby asingletoneunit(113vs74).Inthismulti-tone-unittypeofcleftsentence,theouterand innerclausesarealikerealizedbyoneormorethanonetoneunitoftheirown.With regardtothepatternofinformationdistribution,thetypemostfrequentlyfoundinthis groupisreportedtobethatofnew ― new (i.e.ourCategory(B)),withtheintonation patternoffall＋ fall(46instances),exemplifiedbythenextexample10.
10．SO( )//although［ ］Icouldimaginethatwe｛COULD( )｝・［ :m］・onour jointSALARY (sic)//getperhapsquiteaaahighMORTGAGE( )//itsthe payingitbackattheBEGINNING( )//・thatsgoingtobeDIFFICULT( )//
Ourwrittenexamples1,8and9belongwithexample10inthattheycontainintheir respectiveouterclauses(i.e.ItwasDerRosenkavalier,Itisnotuntilwereachthetimes ofDomesday,andItisbecausethesubordinatesaremorepowerful)completelynew informationelementsdenotedparticularlybyDerRosenkavalier,thetimesofDomesday, andpowerfulandintheirrespectivefocusingclausesinformationnotpreviouslygiven.
ComparedwithexamplesofCategory(B),thoseofCategory(A),namelythosewhich havetheinformationdistributedonthepatternof given―new,withtheintonation patternoffall―rise＋ fall,arereportedtobemuchfewerinnumber(7instances). ProbablytheyaremorecommoninwrittenEnglish,withanotherpossibleexceptionof example6,iftheinformationconveyedbythewholephrasethespoken Latin,notof Rome,butoftheImperialprovincesisconsideredasnew.
Then,whataboutCategory(C)?Example5seemstofitthebill,withthefocused elementcarryinga fallandthefocusingclauseendingontheintonationpatternof fall＋ rise.ButIam notsurehow oftenthiscategoryisexemplifiedbyrealexamples; foritdoesseem thatthepatternofinformationdistributionrealizedbysentencesofthis
type(i.e.new ＋ old)intuitivelyrunscountertothegeneraltendencythattextsare builtuplinearlyandcumulativelyalongthetimedimension(thisismoreso,giventhe factthat,aswillbementionedlaterin2.3.,thetwoclausesformingacleftsentenceare generallythoughttobehighlyindependentofeachother).
Thenextexample,whichcontainstwo instancesofcleftsentence,looksasifit falsifiesthistendencyinthat,inthesecondcleftsentence,thewordFORWARD which constitutesthe nucleusofthe focusing clause with a fall has nevertheless been mentionedalreadyinthefirstcleftsentence:thatistosay,thisclausemayseem notto haveanynew information.
11．Ｂ：I sup/pose it would △go to the △board of △STUDIES( )
｛/WOULDNT( )it//｝///REALLY( )//
Ａ： /NO( )//・/boardsofstudies△dont・dont△DEAL( )withRECOGNI
-TION( )///thisisa― △｛/bloody COMPLICATED( )｝UNI△
VER-SITY( )//［ ］ /its・/its/［ i i］ /facultyintheSCHOOL( )//− ｛thatthat/putsyouFORWARD(→)//｝//you/SEE( )//・/sothatitsthe
△facultyofARTS( )//・ ［ ］ /orthefacultyofECONOMICS( )// /orBOTH ( )//with/in the NF△O( )// thatllbe /putting him
△FORWARD( )//(S.1.2)
Whatmustbenotedhereisthedifferenceinthepitchmovementbetweenthetwo FORWARD sinthetwocleftsentences:thefirstisrealizedwitha leveltoneandthe secondwitha fall.TheleveltoneintheformerseemstosuggestthatthespeakerA presentstheinformationcontainedinthissentencenotashisowncontributiontothe dialoguebutastheinformationultimatelyderivedfrom theuniversityauthorities.In short,thisinformationhappenstobeimpartedthroughhismouth:heisactingjustasa mouthpieceofathirdparty.Thisreadingseemstobesupportedbythepitchmovement onthefocusedelementSCHOOL,namelyarise−fallinsteadofafall,whichdoesseem tosuggestthatthespeakerA isimpartingthewell-establishedfactfrom thepositionof powerderivedfrom theuniversityauthorities(henceYousee?attheend).Itappearsthat wearewitnessinghereanillustrationofwhatBrazilcalls obliqueorientation (1985:Ch. 8).Ifthisisreallythecase,thesecondFORWARD isseentohaveaverydifferent communicativevalueinthatitisutteredasAsowncontributionofinformationtothe
dialogue(notesothatatthebeginning):thatis,itcarriesnew informationfrom hisown pointofview (hencea fallonit).Forthereasonsdiscussedsofar,thiscleftsentence cannotbeconsideredtobelongtoCategory(C).
Collinssays(pp.175-6)thatamorenormalpatternofCategory(C)typeisfoundin exampleslike12below,inwhichfocusingclausesarenotsuperficiallyrealized.
12．Ａ：…［ :m］・now /what was the OTHER ( ) thing｛ I /wanted to
△ASK (→)you//｝ ･/［ i］ /is・/isit thisYEAR( )//that［ :］
/NIGHTINGALE( )goes//−−− Ｂ：［ :］no/NEXT( )year//−−
Ａ：［ :m］・/sixty-［f］-fourSIXTY-FIVE( )// Ｂ：//SIXTY-FIVE( )///YEAH( )//
Ａ：I thought it was BE/FORE( )sixty-five//soits/notuntil― △next yearthatthejobwillbe△ADVERTISED( )//(S.1.1)
Thisexampleisveryinterestinginthatthetwotypesofcleftsentencealreadyexamined aboveoccuratthesametime.ThefirstcleftsentenceisanillustrationofCategory(B) andthesecondofCategory(A).Collinssaysthat,ontopofthese,itispossibletospot anotherinstanceofcleftsentencehere,thatofCategory(C).Accordingtohim,itwas BEFORE sixty-fiveisanellipticalversionofcleftsentenceinwhichthefocusingclause (i.e.thatNightingalegoes)hasnotbeenrealizedsinceitneednotbe(aboutthistypeof ellipsis,seeYoung1980:149,Quirketal1985:349).Hedoesnotdenythatthereisanother readingofthisexamplepossible;thatis,itinthissentenceisananaphoricpronoun referringto thetimethatNightingalegoes.Andthisistherightreadingofthesentence inquestion:for,how canIT referto,orfilltheplacefor,somethingthatisnotpresent? IfIT inthecleftsentenceisacataphoricpronoun,asisclaimedtobethecasebyQuirk etal,somethingmustalwaysbepresenttobecataphoricallyreferredto.Ifitisaplace filler,asisclaimedtobethecaseinthispaper,something mustalwaysbetheretobe filled the place for.Inshort,it was BEFORE sixty-fiveintheaboveexampleisnot aninstanceofcleftsentence.
IsuspectthatcleftsentencesbelongingtoCategory(C)areratherfewinnumber,since thepatternofinformationcarriedbythesesentencesbasically runscounterto the generaltrendmentionedabove.
2．3．Conclusion
Asisgenerallyaccepted(Huddleston1984:462),thecleftsentenceconsistsoftwohighly independentclauses,neitherofwhich isembedded into theother.Thisiswhy the focusingclausecannotberealized,unliketherestrictiverelativeclause,asanonfinite clause.ThepredominantuseofTHAT inthisconstructioncomesfrom thefactthatit istheonlywordthatcanbeusedbothasarelativeandasaparatacticconjunction.In thissense,thecleftsentenceisanexampleofsyntacticblend.Theblendismadepossible because,asagrammaticalword,thefunctionofTHAT ishighlyversatile:asarelative, itcan pick up a much widerrangeofantecedentsthan otherrelatives,and asa conjunctionwhichcanconnectclausesparatacticallyasincomplementation,itcanshow thatthecleftsentenceconsistsoftwohighlyindependentclauses.Inotherwords,THAT isusedhere,ontheonehand,toconnectaclausetoaphrasejustasarelativeTHAT doesand,ontheother,toconnecttwoindependentclauses,justasaconjunctionTHAT doesincomplementation.NootherwordinEnglishcouldservethisdoublefunction. Also,sincethetwoclausesformingacleftsentencearethushighlyindependentofeach other,theinformationconveyedbytheinnerfocusingclausetendstobenew (especially inwrittenexamples),followingthegeneraltrendoftheflow ofinformationwhichis linearlyandcumulativelybuiltupalongthetimedimension.
3．Apeculiarconstructionwithanadverbialthat-clause
Inthispaperonemoretypeofthat-clausewillbeexamined,partlybecauseithasnot beengivenenoughattentioningrammarsdespiteitsfrequentuse(Bolinger1972isthe soleexception)andpartly (moreimportantlyhere) becauseitisoftenwronglyinter -preted,sometimesasacontentclause(Halliday1994)andsometimes,aswillbeseen below,asavariationoffocusingclauseinthecleftsentence.Asamatteroffact,itisan adverbialclauseofreason.
3．1．Avarietyofexamples
Theconstructioninvolvingthistypeofthat-clause,infact,isdescribedbyCollins(1991: 34-36)asasubtypeofcleftsentence.Accordingtohim,theonlymajorformaldifference betweenthetwoconstructionsisthatthisonedoesnothaveafocusedelementbeforea that-clause.Hefurthersaysasfollows:Thesuperordinateclausemayselectmodality, aspectandpolarity,andmayincludea focusingadverb (only,just,andsoon)between
thecopulaandthehighlightedelement… (p.34).Sohisformulaforthisconstruction willbeasfollows:
Itis［was］ /Mod―(have)―BE/(＋ not)(＋ Adv)＋ That＋ Finiteclause (Mod＝modalverbs)
Theproblem tobeaddressedhereiswhetherthisconstructionisreallyasubtypeofcleft sentence,asisclaimedbyCollins.First,letuslookatsomeexamplesthatanswertothe aboveformulainordertoseehow theydifferfrom thecleftsentence.
13．Yes.Icanseehow thiswouldbeseenasperverse.Yourmotherwasnotacting accordingtothespiritofthetimes.Shecouldhavemadeahundredthousandor so.Wasitthatshewasecologicallyminded,likeyourbrother?
14．Anyway…Tim andIarejustsimplyoutofsyncatthemoment―Icantthink how elsetoputit.Werenotconnecting.Dontworry―werenotgoingtosplit up,atleastItrustnot… Itsnotthatwedontloveeachother… Withinthe contextofhow longwevebeentogether…
15．Itwasnotsomuchthathehadanythingagainstpeopleingeneral,morethathe saw nopurposeindeliberatelysettingupoccasionsonwhichyoustoodaround tryingtothinkofsomethingtosay.
16．Theunitswhicharebasictotheprimaryarticulationoflanguagearethus distinguished and identified by combinations ofsmaller units,letters and phonemes.Moreover,thesecombinationsareinturnsubjecttorule.A native Englishwordcannotbegin,forexample,withtheconsonantscv［kv］,although itcouldbeginwithcl,qu［kw］orthelike.Itisnotmerelythatawordsuch ascvab(［kvæb］or［kv b］)doesnothappentoexist.
17．ｂ：/［m］//−−− yougota/COLD( )//
Ａ：− /NO( )//・just a /bit △ SNIFFY( )// cos Im― I /AM( ) COLD( )//and Ill/beallright once Ive warmedUP( )//− do I /LOOK( )asthoughIvegota△COLD( )//
ｂ：noI/thoughtyouSOUNDED( )asifyouwere
Ａ：/［m］//−−−I/alwaysDO( )abitactually///CHRONICALLY( )// −(twomoreturns)−
ｂ：−−−/pullyourCHAIR( )upcloseifyouWANT( )//…
Ａ：/YES( )//・ /Illbeall rightinaMINUTE( )//its/justthatIm △STUPID( )//… (S.1.3)
18．Butmakethemostofthenextfew weeks,foritmaybethattheplanningand thelooking-forwardarethebestpartoftheholiday,withnothingtospoilthe idyllofwhitesandsandblueskiesinthemind.
3．2．Twodifferentconstructionswithsimilarsurfaceforms
Aswasmadeclearearlier,thecleftsentenceisasyntacticblendinwhichsomefeatures ofarelativeclauseandacontentclausemergetogether.Bycontrast,intheabove examples,thereisnofeatureofarelativeclausepresent.Tobesure,thetwoelements it＋be and that aresharedby thisconstruction and thecleftsentence.Butthe similarityendsthere.
Then,areallthethat-clausesintheaboveexamplescontentclauses?Onlyoneis.As wasexplainedinmydoctoralthesis(Chapter6),example18belongswithconstructions withouter-clauseverbslikeSEEM,TURN OUT,etc.,inwhichIT isagrammatical dummy.
But,whenitcomestotheotherexamples,thestorychangesdrastically.Theyare examplesofaconstructionbasicallydifferentfrom thatofexample18.So,itemerges thattwodifferentconstructionsaremixedtogetherinCollinsformula.Firstly,ascanbe seenfrom examples13,14and16,itspointback tothesituationsdescribedinthe precedingtexts:e.g.(thesituation)thatTim and Iarejustsimplyoutofsyncatthe moment;(thefact)thatanativeEnglishwordcannotbeginwiththeconsonantscv［kv］. Theyaretruepronounswhosereferentscanbetracedback intheprecedingtexts. Secondly,thethat-clausesinquestionareadverbialinnature,withTHAT havinga meaningsimilartoBECAUSE.Thattheseclausesareadverbialcanbeseenfrom the factthattheythemselvescanbe the focus ofa cleftsentence:e.g.Itsnotthatwe dontloveeachotherthatwearejustsimplyoutofsyncatthemoment.Thecontentof thesecondthat-clauseinthisparaphraseisusuallypresentedaspartofthepreceding textandthenpickedupbythereferringpronounIT.Asisoftenthecasewithdiscourse anaphoric pronouns,it can be rather difficult to tellexactly what portion of theprecedingtextisreferredtobyIT.Butevenwithexample17,thisparaphrasing testseemstowork:itcanbeparaphrasedassomethinglikeItsjustthatIm stupid
thatImaylookasthoughIvegotacold.Astheseparaphrasesshow us,polarityand focusing adverbsinthese examples have nothingtodowiththefocused elementof cleftsentence.
Hereaproblem arisesastowhythepronouninquestionisalwaysIT,whosefunction couldbelikewiseperformedbyasimilarpronounTHAT.Partofthereasonshouldlie inthefactthatthereisabasicdistinctionofanaphoric―deicticnaturebetweenIT and THAT.Whatisrequiredinthisconstructionisthatthepronounshouldbeanaphoric, referringto(partof)theprecedingtext.AnotherpartofthereasonshouldbethatifIT wasreplacedbyTHAT,thisconstructionwouldhavetwoTHATs,whichcouldappear cheekbyjowlinmanycases(i.e.＊ Wasthatthatshewasecologicallyminded,… ?).Put differently,iftheconjunction wasnotTHAT butBECAUSE,IT could alwaysbe replacedbyTHATwithoutcausinganyproblem (i.e.Wasthatbecauseshewasecological -lyminded,… ?).Thechoiceofpronoun thusseemstobelexically constrained right from thestart.
Ashasbeenseensofar,whatCollinshaswronglyanalysedasasubtypeofcleft sentencewithouta focused elementactually comprisestwo constructionsbasically differentfrom eachother.Neitherofthem isaninstanceofcleftsentence.Asthefirst construction,exemplifiedby18above,hasalreadybeentakencareofinmydoctoral thesis(Chapter6), thesecondalonewillbeschematicallyshownbelow.
Itis/was＋not
Itis/was＋Adv ＋ That＋ Finiteclause
Is/Wasit (THAT isanadverbialconjunction.)
Asisimpliedintheaboveformula,thatsinexamples13to17cannotbeomitted,just asothertypesofadverbialTHATcannotberealizedaszero-forms(e.g.Godhidesthat wemayseek Him).Andthisfactwouldseem toprovideahandydiagnostictestof whetheragiventhat-clauseinquestionisanadverbialclauseoracontentclause.When THAT isnotsuperficiallyrealized,theclausecannotbutbereadasacontentclause, evenifitssurfaceform isidenticalineveryotherrespecttothatofanadverbialclause. Thiscanbeseenfrom examplesliketheonebelow.
pe-cially Natalie… becauseuptillthentheybothofthem hadbeentryingtodo theright thing,beseriousandresponsible people.Itsjustlifegets boring, doesntit?
Intheaboveexample,thesubjectitdoesnotrefertoanyprecedingsituationinthetext: so,itisananticipatoryIT.Thisexample,therefore,canbeparaphrasedassomething likeTheonlythingis,lifegetsboring,doesntit?Whatthisexamplewouldseem to suggestisthatnoclausefailstoloseanadverbialreadingwhenitdropsTHAT.
3．3．Conclusion
IthasbeenshownabovethattheexampleswhichhavebeenconsideredbyCollinsasa subtypeofcleftsentenceactuallycomprisetwoconstructions,bothbasicallydistinct from thecleftsentence,oneofwhichcontainsanadverbialclauseofreason,ashasbeen reformulatedabove.Yethismisreadingtellsagreatdealabouttheuseofvarioustypes ofthat-clause:whenTHAT isinfullplay,itcanneverbedealtwithsoeasily.
NOTES
１．Theterm contentclause”hasbeenborrowedfrom Jespersen(MEG III:23-4): Iventuretocointhisnew term forclausesliketheonein (Ibelieve)thathe isill.Suchclausesaregenerallytermed nounclauses (or substantive clauses,Curme),butthenameisnotveryfelicitous,becausetheseclauses arenotreallynounsorsubstantives,buthaveonlyonequalityincommonwith substantives,namelythatofbeingabletostandasprimaries…”
Mybasicstandpointonthistypeofclauseisthat,astheinsightsshownintheabove remarkssuggest,itisnota nominal clause embedded inor subordinate toa mainclause,butititselfisamainclauseparatacticallyconjoinedtoanotherouter clause.ThemaingrammaticalfunctionofTHAT,therefore,istoshow thatthere existsaparatacticrelationshipbetweenthetwo(ormorethantwo)claus escon-nectedbythisword.Inthissenseitisclaimedthatitsoriginalgrammaticalfunction isstillpreserved.Fordetails,seemydoctoralthesis(Part2).
２．Examples2,6and7arefrom D.Leith:A SocialHistoryofEnglish,example8from P.H.Blair:An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England and example9from S. Romaine:LanguageinSociety.Allspokenexamples(notonly3,4and5citedhere butalso11,12and17citedlaterinthispaper)arefrom J.Svartvik& R.Quirk (eds.):A CorpusofEnglishConversation;theyhavebeenalittlesimplifiedandsome oftheirprosodicfeatureshavehadtobesacrificedmainlybecauseoftheprinters technicallimitations.Thoseprosodicfeatureswhichhavebeenpreservedareas follows:
CAPITALLETTERS :Theheadofatoneunit // :Theendofatoneunit
/ :Theonsetofatoneunit ｛｝ :A subordinatetoneunit
△ :A syllablehigherinpitchthantheprecedingsyllable
△ :A syllablehigherinpitchthantheprecedingpit ch-prominentsyllable
:A normalstress :A heavystress
・ :A briefpause(correspondingtoonelightsyllable) − :A unitpause(correspondingtoonestressunit) Sincethepitchmovementcannotbetechnicallysuperscribedasintheoriginal,itis
showninbracketsjustaftertheheadofatoneunitlikeFORWARD ( ). ３．See,forexample,thefollowingremarksmadebyLambrecht(1994:70-71):
Itisgenerallyassumedthatinorderforthisconstruction(i.e.theit-cleft construction) to be used appropriately,the proposition expressed in the relative clause mustbe pragmatically presupposed,i.e.assumed by the speakertobeknowntotheaddressee.ThisiswhatBorkin(1984:AppendixB) callsthe grammaticalmeaning”oftheit-cleftconstruction… Thus,ifIutter thesentenceItsmykeysthatIlost,Inormallypresupposeinmyaddressee theknowledgethatIlostsomethingandIassertthatthethingwhichIlostis mykeys.
Accordingtothisstatement,theit-cleftsentencecannotbutbethebearerofthe informationalwaysdistributedbetweenitstwoclausesonthepatternofnew ＋
old inmywording:i.e.,theinformationconveyedbythefocusedelementisalways new,whiletheoneconveyedbythefocusingclauseisalwaysold.Alt houghLamb-rechthimselfadmitsanotherpatternofinformationdistributioninthisconstruction in which the focusing clause can carry new information,yetthe information conveyedbythefocusedelementisclaimedtoremainnew.Itwillbecomeclearthat this interpretationiscompletely wrong,aswillbeenshownbyrealexamplesin thisanalysis.Also,hisexample,citedinisolation,whichcanbetranscribedasIts my KEYS( )thatIlost,canbereadintwoways:oneasanexampleofcleft sentenceandtheotherasanexampleofrestrictiverelativeclause,withitfuncti on-ingasananaphoricpronounreferringtosomethingwhichhasbeenmentionedinthe previoussituation.
４．Aboutthepragmaticdistinctionbetweenthetwotypesofpitchmovement,oneof fallandtheotheroffall―rise,Brazilsaysasfollows(1985:106-7):
Veryinformally,wemaysaythattheconstituentthathasa fall―rise is alreadyinplay,conversationally:itiswhatwearetalkingabout.Theconstit -uentthathasthefallissomethingfreshlyintroducedintotheconversation… itisthetoneunithavingthe fall―rise thatcontainswhathasbeenraised already,thatwitha fallthatcontainsthenews.
５．Strictlyspeaking,theexplanationgiveninthetextshouldbereadasashorthandfor theonelikethefollowing:Anelementofinformation,lexicogrammaticallydenoted by Norma Harley,which iscontained in thewholeinformation conveyed by a proposition NormaHarleydidmostofthetalking”asitssubject-argument,is assumed to bealready known extralinguistically to alltheparticipantsofthe conversation.
６．ThisexampleiscitedinCollins1991:157from theLondon-LundCorpusS.8.1. ７．Examples13to15arefrom P.Lively:PassingOn,example16from P.H.Matthews:
Morphology,andexample18from P.ToynbeeinRadioTimes.
８．Exampleslike18areformularizedasthefollowinginmythesis(6.3.1.): IT＋X :That-clause
Inthisformula,IT isagrammaticaldummy,justfillingthesubjectpositionand X isrealizedbyverbslikeSEEM,HAPPEN orTURN OUT ormoreoftenbythe fullverbBE(withthemeaningsimilarto HAPPEN )whichisoftenmodalizedby MAY/MIGHT,MUST,CAN or COULD.That-clause ofthis kind is surely extraposedtosentence-finalpositionbutitretainsindependencefrom thepreceding componentsIT＋X;henceacolonisusedtoshow thisrelation.
９．Thisexampleisfrom F.Weldon:TheHeartoftheCountry.
References
Bolinger,D.(1972):ThatsThat,Mouton
Bolinger,D.(1977):Anotherglanceatmainclausephenomena,Language53,511-519 Brazil,D.(1985):TheCommunicativeValueof Intonation in English,Universityof
Birmingham DiscourseAnalysisMonograph,no.8
Collins,P.C.(1991):CleftandPseudo-CleftConstructionsinEnglish,Routledge Greenbaum,S.(1969):StudiesinEnglishAdverbialUsage,Longman
Halliday,M.A.K.(1994):AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar,EdwardArnold(2nd ed.)
Huddleston,R.(1984):IntroductiontotheGrammarofEnglish,CambridgeUniversity Press
Jespersen,O.(1909-49):A ModernEnglishGrammar,GeorgeAllen& Unwin
Lambrecht,K.(1994):InformationStructureandSentenceForm,CambridgeUniversity Press
Quirk,R.etal(eds.)(1985):A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman
Sekine,F.(1996):ClauseCombining in ContextualGrammar in English,unpublished doctoralthesis,UniversityofBirmingham
TwoType
sofThat
-c
l
a
us
e日本語梗概
関 根 文 夫
この小論は，著者が1996年に英国の Birmingham 大学に提出した博士論文の続きを成すも のである。この博士論文においては，いわゆる名詞節と呼ばれる That節が大きく採り上げ られたが，その主旨は，既に Jespersenによって看破されていたように，この節は決して名 詞的ではなく，この節が文章中に占める位置によってそのように見えるに過ぎない，という 点の主張にあった。従って，この That節は，従来言われてきたように，他の要素（例えば say,thinkといった動詞）に従属しておらず，それ自体独立していると えなければ，多く の言語事実は十分に説明されえない，というのが著者の立場であった。
本論で採り上げた２種類の That節は，上記の That節に形の上でよく似ている。１つは 分裂文（Cleftsentence）と呼ばれるもので，日本の中等教育ではよく It… that…の強調構 文 として知られるものであり，ItisinNew YorkthatIfirstmether.のような文に代表 される。他の１つは特定の名称を持たないが，実際の英語ではかなり頻度の高い構文で，Itis notthatIdontloveher.のような文に代表される。この２つの例文で分かる通り，両者は 最も頻繁に使用されるThat節に形態上似ているし（例えば Itisclearthatthetwoarguments donotmeetatall.といったような文），さらに前者は，関係代名詞としての Thatにもしば しば似ており，従って一般に関係代名詞として扱われている。 この形態上の相似からくる，両構文についての誤った解釈を，実際の例の分析を通して正 すのが，この小論の１つの大きな目的である。本論中ではまず，第１の構文で特に問題とな る，この文がどのような情報の伝達手段として使われているか，という点に焦点を当て，現 在主流を成している言語学者たちの解釈を批判した。さらに第２の構文に関しては，現在ま でほとんど満足な研究もなされていないのが実情であり，従って，今参 になる解釈は甚だ ピントのずれたものである。これら個々の言語事実の解明をまず行い，さらにそこから翻っ て，両構文を一般の That節に関する著者の見解と関連させることによって，博士論文での 主張をさらに裏付けようというのが本論の最終的な目的である。
