Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Le français parlé informel]( "Le français parlé informel")
Le français parlé informel92,99 €![Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles]( "Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles")
Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles92,99 €![Humanidades Digitales]( "Humanidades Digitales")
Humanidades Digitales129,95 €![Gesprochenes Französisch]( "Gesprochenes Französisch")
Gesprochenes Französisch19,95 €![The Syntax-Information Structure Interface]( "The Syntax-Information Structure Interface")
The Syntax-Information Structure Interface92,99 €![La Interfaz Sintaxis-Pragmática]( "La Interfaz Sintaxis-Pragmática")
La Interfaz Sintaxis-Pragmática92,99 €![Diaphasische Variation und syntaktische Komplexität]( "Diaphasische Variation und syntaktische Komplexität")
Diaphasische Variation und syntaktische Komplexität119,95 €
This monograph is the first large-scale corpus analysis of French il y a clefts. While most research on clefts focusses on the English 'prototypical' it-cleft and its equivalents across languages, this study examines the lesser-known il y a clefts - of both presentational-eventive and specificational type - and provides an in-depth analysis of their syntactic, semantic and discourse-functional properties.
In addition to an extensive literature review and a comparison with Italian c'è clefts and with French c'est clefts, the strength of the study lies in the critical approach it develops to the common definition of clefts. Several commonly used criteria for clefts are applied to the corpus data, revealing that these criteria often lead to ambiguous results. The reasons for this ambiguity are explored, thus leading to a better understanding of what constitutes a cleft. In this sense, the analysis will be of interest to specialists of Romance and non-Romance clefts alike.
In addition to an extensive literature review and a comparison with Italian c'è clefts and with French c'est clefts, the strength of the study lies in the critical approach it develops to the common definition of clefts. Several commonly used criteria for clefts are applied to the corpus data, revealing that these criteria often lead to ambiguous results. The reasons for this ambiguity are explored, thus leading to a better understanding of what constitutes a cleft. In this sense, the analysis will be of interest to specialists of Romance and non-Romance clefts alike.