A Contrastive Study Of Cleft And Pseudo-Cleft Constructions In Modern English And Chinese----a Corpus-based Study

" Cleft/pseudo-cleft constructions are syntactic constructions where a single clause has been divided into two clauses. The term "clefting" refers to the transformation in generative transformational grammar which derives the cleft construction from the basic construction. Cleft/pseudo-cleft sentences serve to mark the constituents that are the focus of the sentence and are especially used to indicate contrast."(Hadumod Bussmann,2000)This description about clefts/pseudo-clefts is quoted from Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (Hadumod Bussmann,2000,76) and it is not hard to find that the description itself is proposed from the perspectives of traditional grammar and generative transformational grammar. The description partially reflects the accomplishments the traditional and generative schools have done for the study of the two constructions. Traditional studies paid attention to the formal structures and the semantic functions of the constituents of the two constructions; while transformational studies focused on the derivation of the two constructions. In the1980th, the functional studies about the two constructions have got developed. Basically, the functional analysis can be divided into two aspects:one is the information-based approach which solves the problem of how the different informational components cooperate with each other; the other is the discourse-oriented approach which takes the organization of discourses as the starting point, analyzing the way the discourse is arranged and organized. The previous functional analysis mainly concerns the realization of the metafunctions of the two constructions in the respective systems. So a more comprehensive study about the syntactic forms as well as the functions is urgent. Besides that, the contrastive study between Chinese clefts/pseudo-clefts and English ones is seldom conducted.We can see that there is still room for improvement. So in designing the frame of the present study, we prefer a more comprehensive guidance theory and a more scientific method. Functional analysis on clefts or pseudo-clefts will lead to a more comprehensive, dynamic result with the main idea of putting clefts and pseudo-clefts into actual use rather than analyzing the structures without any context; and the corpus-based method provides us a more comprehensive and convincing tool in the research.Departing from the textual function of the two constructions, this paper attempts to explore the different ways of meaning delivery in Chinese and English by the use of corpora. The results may wield their influence on second language teaching, translation as well as the cross-cultural communication.The study applies an integrative method of the contrastive analysis and corpus-based analysis. The detailed process of the data collection is as follows:firstly, the qualified data will be collected from the corpora by their respective types. This step is not conducted automatically. Automatic selection can not distinguish the unqualified data, which have similar forms with the two constructions, from the qualified one. So the exclusion of the unqualified data will be done manually. Secondly, all the valid items will be categorized according to the genre of the discourse, and thus the distribution of clefts/pseudo-clefts will be demonstrated. Thirdly,10%of the valid items will be selected randomly from each corpus as the objects of the analysis. The selected samples will be analyzed from the perspectives of syntax, and function (theme and information). By comparing the configuration of the two constructions, we find out the differences in the ways of information delivery and the realization of textual function.The chapter of analysis is divided into three sections. The first one mainly focuses on the analysis of the structures of the two constructions from the perspectives of their syntactic and functional structures. By the first section, we obtain an overall understanding about the configuration of clefts/pseudo-clefts and classify the constructions into "marked" and "unmarked" ones. The second section mainly concerns the syntactic forms of the "focus" and the relationship between syntax, theme and information by observing the position and function of focus. Besides the discussion on theme and information, cohesion is an inevitable criterion for the textual function. So in the last part of analysis, we will pay attention to the differences in the usage of cohesive devices in English and Chinese clefts/pseudo-clefts.After the data collection and analysis, we can generalize the results from the following aspects (the detailed results will be displayed in Chapter6and Chapter7):(1) As for distribution of clefts/pseudo-clefts, English and Chinese have different preferences. For example, Chinese clefts are frequently used in spoken and fiction; whereas English clefts are highly used in the "academic" genre.(2) The statistic displays that, there are some features in the syntactic forms of the focus in different constructions. For the classes of focus in English clefts, there are many choices besides nominal phrases. Any word that can be thematized could be the focus of the construction. But for English pseudo-clefts, the classes of focus are highly restricted. In this study, the classes of the focus of pseudo-clefts are nominal phrases, finite and non-finite clauses. Basically, the restrictions for the classes of focus in English pseudo-clefts are also valid in Chinese pseudo-clefts. However, the difference is that in the Chinese language, there is no non-finite clause. So for Chinese pseudo-clefts, based on this study, the classes of focus are nominal phrase and finite clause. In Chinese cleft sentences, focus is always presented in the class of nominal phrases, finite clauses are seldom used to be the focus; whereas, the distribution of Chinese pseudo-clefts is relatively balanced. Besides the features of the constructions, the differences between marked and unmarked structures will be shown by the data too.(3) Although Chinese and English clefts/pseudo-clefts have different syntactic structures and different types, functionally, clefts or pseudo-clefts has similar ways in conveying information regardless of the switch of the code.(4) By observing the data from the corpora, we find that there are differences in the ways cohesion is realized. And the differences can be traced back to the divergence between two language systems (more information in Chapter6)This study is a continuation and development of the antecedent researches. The results of the study have some applications in theoretical researches.Firstly, starting from SFQ this study illustrates the organization and explanation of the two constructions. By doing that this study enriches and replenishes the previous studies about cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions.Secondly, by displaying the data from different aspects, we can summarize the differences between Chinese and English clefts/pseudo-clefts, such as the differences in "focus" selection, the differences in information delivery, the difference in cohesive devices and so on.Besides the applications in theoretical studies, this study also commits to wield positive influence on the language teaching and cross-cultural communication. By displaying the differences in the syntactic forms of English and Chinese clefts/pseudo-clefts, we can get some inspiration for the English teaching by advancing our pedagogy and teaching plan; by mastering the differences in the realization of textual functions, we could enhance our skills in cross-cultural communication; by discussing the difference in the application of cohesive devices, we pay more attention on the different language phenomena as well as the reasons underlying them, and thus may helps us in reading and translation in English and Chinese.