Pseudo-cleft

Question

Hi,I came across the following underlined sentence while I was watching a video on "sleep solutions".W: And does a bedtime routine help ease our bodies into sleep?M: It really does, Tanya.  And you really want to allow time in the evening to get your mind and body ready for sleep.  You want to ease into sleep.  You want some quiet time.  Dim the lights, listen to some soothing music.  Read.  Take a warm bath.  These are things that will help get your mind and body ready.W: So you've got to have that, that wind-down period.  And whatever that means to you, because some people don't like to read, other people find it necessary. M: Sure.  Whatever works for you is what you want to do to ease into sleep. Here the predicate plays a role of defining a variable(the x such that I want to x to ease into sleep) and the subject expresses the value of that variable.  It identifies the value indirectly, though:  Whatever it is that works for you. If "it" means reading a boring book, do that activity.  If "it" means listening to soothing music, you can do that activity as well. Q1) Is my reasoning correct?Q2) Are the following sentences grammatically correct?ex1) Reading a boring book is what you want to do to ease into sleep.ex2) Listening to soothing music is what you want to do to ease into sleep.I'd appreciate your help.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

jooneyM: Sure. Whatever works for you is what you want to do to ease into sleep.

Here the predicate plays a role of defining a variable(the x such that I want to x to ease into sleep) and the subject expresses the value of that variable. It identifies the value indirectly, though: Whatever it is that works for you. If "it" means reading a boring book, do that activity. If "it" means listening to soothing music, you can do that activity as well.

Q1) Is my reasoning correct?

I believe so. An equivalent is:

What you [want to / should] do in order to ease into sleep is whatever works for you.

Or, more simply:

You [want to / should] do whatever works for you in order to ease into sleep.

jooneyQ2) Are the following sentences grammatically correct?

ex1) Reading a boring book is what you want to do to ease into sleep.
ex2) Listening to soothing music is what you want to do to ease into sleep.

They are fine. No problems.

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Hi, CJ. Happy New Year!I did some searches on this topic over the past couple of days and found out that apparently there are two approaches to analyzing the strucure of "specificational" pseudo-cleft sentences. This approach basically sees a specificational pseudo-cleft sentence as being derived from an uncleft sentence.  For example,ex1)A: You need a good rest.(uncleft version)B: What you need is a good rest.A free(fused) relative construction defines a variable whose value, in turn, is specified by the foregrounded element.  So, in example 1, I take it for granted that you need something and assert that that something is a good rest.  The free relative construction corresponds to "the x that you need x" (or "the x such that you need x"), the foregrounded element represents "a good rest", and "be" expresses identity, hence that "a good rest" is the value of the variable x.(Huddleston's explanaiton) This approach takes specificational pseudo-cleft sentences to be a pair of question and its anwer.  This approach is attractive because the semantics of these sentences is intuitively similar to that of questions and anwers.  One linguist noted about specificational pseudo-cleft sentences, "The subject in some way delimits a domain and the specificational predicate identifies aparticular member of that domain."  And This is intuitively similar to the role an answer plays of filling in the variable in the question.(this explanation taken from a linguist's paper)ex1) What he ate was a bagel.Q: What did he eat?A: (He ate) a bagel.ex2) What John doing is finishing his book.Q: What is John doing?A: (He is) finishing his book.ex3) What I thought was that he was a jerk.Q: What did I think?A: (I thought) that he was a jerk.ex5) What I was hoping for was his autograph.Q: What was I hoping for?A:( I was hoping for) his autograph.ex6) What she did was call the police.(Is this sentence correct?  I made it on my own)Q: What did she do?A: (She) called the police.ex7) Whatever works for you is what you want to do to ease into sleep.Q: What do you want to do to ease into sleep?A: (You want to do) whatever works for you (to ease into sleep)In my opinion, the question answer pair approch is much easier to apply.  I'd appreciate it if you could share your opinion on this.   p.s. There seems to be some cases in which either approch doesn't work very well.ex) What I don't like about him is his tie. I don't like his tie about him.(??) (uncleft version)Q: What don't I like about him?A: (I don't like) his tie (about him).(??)

CalifJim · Answer

I did some searches on this topic over the past couple of days and found out that apparently there are two approaches to analyzing the strucure of "specificational" pseudo-cleft sentences. This approach basically sees a specificational pseudo-cleft sentence as being derived from an uncleft sentence.

I've never seen this approach.

ex6) What she did was call the police.(Is this sentence correct? I made it on my own)Q: What did she do?A: (She) called the police.

Your sentence is correct.

I'd appreciate it if you could share your opinion on this.

I'd have to think about it. It's totally new to me.

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Hi, CJ.

I have additional questions about pseudo-cleft sentences.

A faulty swich caused the problem.(basic version)

<it cleft sentence>

The x such that x caused the problem was a faulty switch.
=>It+is/was+the highlighted element+the relative clause.
=>It was a faulty switch that caused the problem.

<pseudo-cleft sentence>

The x such that x caused the problem was a faulty switch.
=>What caused the problem was a faulty switch.

The final outcome is a little different, but the logic behind the derivation is same.

Okay, I think I can understand this, but there are some explanations I don't understand on the differences between the two constructions in Huddleston's book.

<explanation #1>

Consider now the pseudo-cleft. The content of the relative clause is presented as not being at issue, but doesn't have to be, and in majority of cases probably is not given in the strict sense. The kind of non-given information that we get in the relative clause of the basic pseudo-cleft is somewhat different from that in the cleft construction. Suppose, for example, that after some energetic exercise I say What I need is a cold drink: that I need something is not given in the sense of having been mentioned or established, but it is very easy to accept and hence is presented, in the themantic organisation of the message, as subordinate to the identification of the thing needed. I would be unlikely to say It's a cold drink that I need if it were not given that I need something. Or again I might say What worries me is that he may not have sufficient will-power to carry it though without it being given that something worries me:the fact that something worries me is nevertheless presented as being of minor significance in relation to the cause of the worry(and note that the content of the highlighted element is such that it is easy to accept it as a source of worry)

Q1) What do the underlined parts mean? He seems to be saying that it's not required that the information be introduced in the previous discourse in order to use a psuedo-cleft sentence. He explains why that is so, but I don't quite understand his explanation.

<explanation #2>

This difference(the difference explained above) is related to the linear sequence of elements. In the former, the fused relatve comes first and the construction thus conforms to the general tendency for communicatively more important elements to come later. In the cleft construction the highlighted element comes before the relative clause, and when the latter does not explain given information it is thus also in conformity with this general tendency that it should be commuicatively more significant than the fused relative.

Q2) I'm lost here. Again, what does the underlined mean?

I'd really appreciate it if you could help me on this.

Pseudo-cleft

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions