Identifying relations: The semantic functions of wh-clefts in English

Abstract

This study compares the semantic relations represented by the wh-clauses of basic and reversed wh-clefts in the Freiburg corpus of written British English (FLOB). In both types of wh-clefts, there is a skewing of certain types of processes (mental, verbal, and relational) and circumstances (location, matter, and extent circumstances). This is related to the fact that the semantic function of the wh-clauses of wh-clefts is to represent a variable in a value-variable relation. There are also some di¤erences in the distribution of these relations in basic and reversed wh-clefts. These di¤erences can be explained by the di¤erent communicative functions of basic and reversed wh-clefts. Basic wh-clefts, where the wh-clauses are thematic, are often used to present newsworthy information from, for example, an evaluative perspective. Reversed wh-clefts, on the other hand, where the whclauses are rhematic, are often used to negotiate the validity of information already conveyed in the text or to highlight, for example, modal meanings.

What they highlight is…: The discourse functions of basic wh-clefts in lectures

“…A comparison between the proportional distribution of the six main process types in the wh-clauses of the lecture sample and those from previous studies on basic wh-clefts (Herriman 2004) and different clause types (e.g. Matthiessen 1999) ( Table 1) shows only partial correspondence.…”

“…Collins 1991Collins , 2006Herriman 2003Herriman , 2004, in dialogic or spontaneous conversational speech (Kim 1995;Miller and Weinert 1998), and in a spoken corpus containing very few lectures (the London-Lund Corpus of spoken British English in Collins 1991 and. However, the typical nature of the lecture as a (semi-) planned, spoken public monologue with a chiefly pedagogical purpose means findings from such genres cannot reliably be extrapolated to this genre.…”

“…First, the three main features of the wh-clauses, namely verb phrases, subjects and modality were quantified. Next, to establish the extent to which the selection of particular verb types is specific to the basic wh-clefts in this lecture sample, a comparison was made with the proportional distribution of verb types in other clause types (Biber et al 1999;Biber 2006;Matthiessen 1999) and genres (Herriman 2004). Second, the basic wh-clefts were analysed for their main discourse function.…”

“…In verb phrases with a catenative (e.g. want to cover) the catenative has determined the process type, following Herriman (2004); 3 in the case of the pro-verbs do and happen, the verb phrase in the complement has been classified. Naturally, the co-text has also been considered so that, for instance, look at would be considered a verbal process when the co-text suggests it means something like 'discuss'.…”

“…3 I have opted for a more semantic approach to classifying catenatives as it seems more relevant for this study and facilitates comparison with Herriman (2004). This approach differs from the more differentiated treatment of complex verb phrases with catenatives in Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 516 (sslct025) It is noteworthy that wh-clauses in our corpus tend to consist only of an 'informationally light' verb (Callies 2009: 47) (e.g.…”