0
Jooney Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Pseudo-cleft sentence
Hi,
I'm still hung up on this subject. There are still some issues that need to be dealt with.
A: John lost his keys.(basic version)
B: What John lost was his keys.(pseudo-cleft version)
The above pair basically have the same information content, and yet, in a certain context, only one of them makes sense. As a non-native English speaker, it is extremely difficult to understand why that is so. So I decided to dig deep and found one linguist's paper that gives detailed accounts of this issue.
He basically says that a presupposition, which is the information taken for granted is what sets them apart. In B, there is a presupposition that John has lost something, whereas in A, there is no such thing. And he adds that cases whose presupposition represents information that has been explicitly evoked in the preceding discourse are not common and that the vast majority of cases refer to information that is less direct.
"In some instances, the information is in fact given in the preceding linguistic context."
ex) "There is no question what they are after. What the Committee is after is somebody at the White House. They would like to get Haldeman or Colson, Ehrlichman."
"However, such repetition is quite rare."
He then gives four subtypes of the latter. Here is one of the subtypes:
<contrast>
The following examples are similar to the previous example in that "their antecedents are related to the preceding linguistic context, but here the relation is one of contrast." "The contrast may be one of negative/affirmative, antonymy, positive/comparative/superlative, time, etc."
ex1) "Precisely how pseudo-clefts are formed need not concern us.... What is relevant is that all cases examined above-and in fact in most pseudo-clefts-the constituent following "be" is an NP.
ex2) "Our position is dynamic one. It will be more and more refined as conditions change in the course of the struggle. What is constant is our commitment to a revolutionary emancipation of Ethiopia."
ex3) "The fact that... pre-eminence of some groups and regions over others shifted frequently is well known... What is less known, or rather not admitted by some who prefer not to look at the staring presence of reality, is the other fact that..."
ex4) When we first started to research women's part in history, we concentrated on the superstars.... What has become more important to us now, though, is how the average woman lived...."
Could someone give easier examples that corresponds to each of the above examples and explain the relationship between the antecedents and the wh-clefts? Would it be too much to ask you to do that? I'd really like to understand these examples. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me on this.
I'm still hung up on this subject. There are still some issues that need to be dealt with.
A: John lost his keys.(basic version)
B: What John lost was his keys.(pseudo-cleft version)
The above pair basically have the same information content, and yet, in a certain context, only one of them makes sense. As a non-native English speaker, it is extremely difficult to understand why that is so. So I decided to dig deep and found one linguist's paper that gives detailed accounts of this issue.
He basically says that a presupposition, which is the information taken for granted is what sets them apart. In B, there is a presupposition that John has lost something, whereas in A, there is no such thing. And he adds that cases whose presupposition represents information that has been explicitly evoked in the preceding discourse are not common and that the vast majority of cases refer to information that is less direct.
"In some instances, the information is in fact given in the preceding linguistic context."
ex) "There is no question what they are after. What the Committee is after is somebody at the White House. They would like to get Haldeman or Colson, Ehrlichman."
"However, such repetition is quite rare."
He then gives four subtypes of the latter. Here is one of the subtypes:
<contrast>
The following examples are similar to the previous example in that "their antecedents are related to the preceding linguistic context, but here the relation is one of contrast." "The contrast may be one of negative/affirmative, antonymy, positive/comparative/superlative, time, etc."
ex1) "Precisely how pseudo-clefts are formed need not concern us.... What is relevant is that all cases examined above-and in fact in most pseudo-clefts-the constituent following "be" is an NP.
ex2) "Our position is dynamic one. It will be more and more refined as conditions change in the course of the struggle. What is constant is our commitment to a revolutionary emancipation of Ethiopia."
ex3) "The fact that... pre-eminence of some groups and regions over others shifted frequently is well known... What is less known, or rather not admitted by some who prefer not to look at the staring presence of reality, is the other fact that..."
ex4) When we first started to research women's part in history, we concentrated on the superstars.... What has become more important to us now, though, is how the average woman lived...."
Could someone give easier examples that corresponds to each of the above examples and explain the relationship between the antecedents and the wh-clefts? Would it be too much to ask you to do that? I'd really like to understand these examples. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me on this.
Top answer
ex. 1: At this point in your education, how you form your "t's" and "r's" when you write is not a major concern (that's elementary school stuff). What is important from here on is the content of what you write.
- ex.
- 1: At this point in your education, how you form your "t's" and "r's" when you write is not a major concern (that's elementary school stuff).
- What is important from here on is the content of what you write.
- ex.
- 2: The field of software engineering is dynamic and constantly changing.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
ex. 1: At this point in your education, how you form your "t's" and "r's" when you write is not a major concern (that's elementary school stuff). What is important from here on is the content of what you write.
ex. 2: The field of software engineering is dynamic and constantly changing. However, what will always be constant in software engineering is discipline and hard work.
ex. 2: The field of software engineering is dynamic and constantly changing. However, what will always be constant in software engineering is discipline and hard work.
00
jooneyeasier examplesYou don't need that. What you need is something else.
His opinions are constantly changing. What remains constant is his anger.
We already know that average temperatures are increasing. What we don't know is how to deal with the problem.
The theft of the diamond occurs at the beg
00
Thank you very much for your answers, Anon. I have one more question. How do you determine the tense of the "be" verb in pseudo-cleft sentences?
A: John lost his keys.
B: What John lost was his keys.
The past tense form "was" is correct because the verb in the uncleft counterpart(lose) is in the past form?
A: John lost his keys.
B: What John lost was his keys.
The past tense form "was" is correct because the verb in the uncleft counterpart(lose) is in the past form?
00
Thank you very much, CJ. It's now clear what the author meant by "contrast".
Could you explain on how to determine the tense of th
Could you explain on how to determine the tense of th00
The tense of "be" depends on the context:
A: What is John looking for? What did he lose?
B: What he lost is his keys.
A: What was John looking for last night? What did he lose?
B: What he lost was his keys.
A: What is John looking for? What did he lose?
B: What he lost is his keys.
A: What was John looking for last night? What did he lose?
B: What he lost was his keys.
00
jooneyWhich is correct, "is" or "was"?Usually the linking verb takes its cue from the tense inside the 'what' clause.
What I meant was; What I mean is; What they knew was; What they know is; What I remembered was; What I remember is; and so on.
If there is a mix, the linking verb will usually be present when the what clause is
00
0
Thank you so much for your answer, CJ. I have one last question. What is the difference in meaning between a default version(What I meant was~) and a version with the mixed tense(What I meant is~)? No difference?
00
jooney No difference?The small difference is based on the time gap between the what clause and the rest of the sentence.
Let me put the thoughts of the speaker in brackets.
What I meant [when I just told you that a second ago] is that you should try doing that a different way.
What I meant [when I had that argument with h
00
Related Questions