Cleft-like sentences(*).

"The question is which is to be master." -- Humpty Dumpty 

Abstract

Comparing translations of certain copular sentences with dummy subjects, the present paper demonstrates different preferences in English and German, interpreting them as yet another case of the alternative perspective of a more "configurational" language (English) versus a less "configurational" language (German). Like clefts, these sentences compensate for the tighter constraints of English on topicalization and adverbial modification by using abstract referents as copular subjects. German does not favor the formally analogous structures because they are syntactically ambiguous and because there are more economical ways in German of achieving similar (albeit not identical) information structures. However, carrying the existential presupposition of all clefts, such "cleft-like" sentences, too, function as formal indicators of macrostructural relevance, while the corresponding "declefted" structures in German achieve macrostructural relevance only in a nonconventionalized way.

1. Copular subjects with dummy heads

In Lewis Carroll's famous passage about the use of words, Humpty Dumpty repeatedly demonstrates to Alice what it means to be "master": "When I use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." And when Alice ventures to question this -- "The question is ... whether you CAN make words mean so many different things" -- Humpty Dumpty brushes her off: "The question is which is to be master -- that's all."

Although we could use a copular sentence in German, too: "Die Frage ist, wer der Herr ist" or better: "... wer der Starkere ist," Christian Enzensberger's translation rephrases the matrix clause as "Es fragt sich nur, wer der Starkere ist, weiter nichts." The copula is replaced by a main verb taken from the original subject, which, in turn, is replaced by an expletive pronoun. The difference may not seem worth talking about, but copular sentences with abstract nouns in the precopular position are very popular in English, and they have a strong tendency to disappear in the German translations.

The postcopular structure may be a that clause, a wh clause, or a more or less extended nonfinite verb phrase. Quirk et al. (1985: 1388f.) present some of these sentences as paraphrases of pseudocleft sentences, claiming that the restriction of pseudoclefts to what is compensated in sentences like

(1)   The way we make a cake is by following mother's recipe.

(2)   The reason we decided to return was that he was ill.

by the use of "noun phrases of general reference in place of the wh item." As the paraphrases are not canonical clefts, let me call them cleft-like sentences.(1) In most cases, the abstract noun of the cleft-like sentence is modified by some scalar element, quantifier, or adjective in a prenominal position and specified by a postnominal extension. Doherty (1996) suggests including sentences like

(3)   The major problem limiting all the applications of these new
      techniques is that at present there is little control over the
      activity of foreign genes after they have been inserted.
      (g116)(2)

that is, sentences with a much more specific subject. As both types of subjects, the bare ones as well as the extended ones, also cooccur with infinitival complements after the copula, the list can be extended to cases like

(4)   ... the next problem is to get the gene into the cell nucleus.
      (g31)

(5)   An alternative way of getting foreign genes into a cell nucleus
      is to use the DNA of a virus as a kind of Trojan horse.
      (g38)

If we compare these sentences with their German translations (see below), we find the copula replaced by a main verb and the "cleft" declefted, that is, the number of clauses or clauselike structures reduced. The empirical observations give rise to theoretical questions like the following:

-- What is the discourse function of these sentences as compared to other cleft or noncleft sentences?

-- What is the reason for the different preferences in English and German?

In an attempt to answer these questions, I shall begin with a survey of the translational data illustrating the structural differences between English and German and then take a closer look at some of the examples, analyzing their discourse functions and the language-specific conditions promoting the different preferences.

The discussion will show that the formal similarity between such copular structures in English and German is misleading. While the English structures are canonical structures, their German counterparts are inverted structures. The difference can be considered as yet another instance of the "parameterized perspective" (Doherty 1996 and section 3.1 below), which distinguishes the contextually appropriate use of the two languages and promotes or constrains the use of such abstract referents (section 4).

2. Translational data

As Doherty (e.g. 1991) shows, it is the method of systematically varied paraphrases ("control paraphrases") that helps us to stabilize our intuitions about the target-language appropriateness of translations. Our intuition can tell us which paraphrase of a set of alternative paraphrases is normally to be preferred in a particular context; what our intuition usually cannot tell us is the reason for the different preferences. This is where we have to draw upon detailed theories about the linguistic elements involved. But for a first idea of what the different preferences are, original structures and their translations (screened by the method of control paraphrases) offer a lot of authentic and theoretically challenging data. In the following, we will look at several classes of cleft-like sentences and their German translations, choosing the best possible version from a set of alternative paraphrases. The choice will be shown to be due to the parameterized perspective of English and German sentence structures, resulting from an interaction between general principles of language processing and basic grammatical parameters. I will spell this out in more detail in section 3. The basic idea is quite simple: we prefer a particular version as the best possible version of all the paraphrases because it is easier to comprehend than all the other paraphrases.

Comprehensibility is determined by the principle of optimal relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1986), which requires an optimal relation between cognitive gains and processing effort. This principle is a universal characteristic of the use of language, controlling the use of the target language in translations, too -- although translational strategies may deviate from it no less than any other uses of language may. If things get better from one paraphrase to the next, this is, above all, due to the continual improvement of processing conditions. But the typological differences between English and German are such that optimal processing conditions in English and German differ. Thus the best possible version of a translation will often differ widely from the original (with the difference in "surface equivalence" compensated for by accommodation).

What we find in translations of cleft-like copular sentences is a variety of different cases that can be summarized into three major classes depending on the "fate" of the copula:

a. the copula is replaced by the main verb of the postcopular structure of the original (raising pattern);

b. the copula is replaced by an element (if need be, recategorized) from the precopular structure (lowering pattern) -- the change is mostly accompanied by a nominalization of the postcopular structure;

c. the copula is retained or is replaced by a copula-like main verb, with or without additional changes.

The first two patterns lead to a structural reduction of two clauses into one clause; the third pattern need not lead to such a reduction, but it can be shown to improve processing conditions too.

Let us look at each of the three classes in succession.

2.1. Raising reduction

In a text on genetic engineering, describing the problems of the insertion of new genes into the DNA of higher organisms, the sixth paragraph is opened by

(6)   Whatever method is used to provide copies of the gene, the next
      problem is to get the gene into the cell nucleus.
      (g31)

The previous two paragraphs describe various approaches used to obtain pure copies of a gene, the subsequent sentences present a simple method of gene insertion. The whole passage is introduced by a paragraph giving a rough survey of the problems associated with such techniques of genetic engineering. Thus, the preceding paragraphs and the subsequent sentences elaborate the problems of the various phases of gene insertion. But the copular sentence merely moves the text from one discourse topic to the next.

We could use an analogous version in German:

(7)   Welche Methode auch immer verwendet wird, um Kopien des Gens
      zu erhalten/Wie auch immer die Genkopien gewonnen werden, das
      nachste Problem ist es, das Gen in den Zellkern einzufugen.

But the copular part is a very clumsy structure in German, if it is grammatical at all. One of its deficiencies is the expletive es -- a place-holder not needed in English. We can get rid of it by using the infinitive in the precopular position:

(8)   ... das Gen in den Zellkern einzufugen ist das nachste Problem.

But this order would not be contextually appropriate (basically, because it presents the focus before the topic -- which is a marked order, in need of special licensing conditions):(3)

(9)   Wie auch immer die Genkopien gewonnen werden, #das Gen in
      den Zellkern einzufugen ist das nachste Problem.
      (# symbolizes contextual inappropriateness.)

Things get significantly better when we give up the copular sentence, reframe the specific meaning of its matrix clause as an adverbial (als nachstes), and replace the copula and its infinitival complement by a modalized full verb (mu[Beta] eingefugt werden):(4)

(10)   ... als nachstes mu[Beta] das Gen in den Zellkern eingefugt
       werden.

Attached to the initial clause in a reordered and pronominally reduced
form, this yields

(11)   Wie auch immer die Genkopien gewonnen werden, sie mussen als
       nachstes in den Zellkern eingefugt werden.

If the last paraphrase is the most appropriate version, what is the reason for the German preferences? We could call the more explicit structures in German clumsy, but what does this mean? And would we not have to call the English original clumsy, too? After all, the frequent occurrence of such copular sentences might be just a "bad habit" in texts of the pragmatic type used here.

On the other hand, the improvement on the German side is not visible to the English reader, for whom the copular structure with the "noun phrase of general reference" in the precopular position and the infinitival phrase in the postcopular position present optimal processing conditions.

If we translate the preferred German version back into English, we end up with something like

(12)   Whatever method is used to provide copies of the gene, the gene
       has to be inserted into the cell nucleus ?next.

It is clear that we cannot insert the English adverbial next in any satisfying way. Nor can we delete the concept of next without losing a relevant piece of information:

(13)   Whatever method is used to provide copies of the gene, the gene
       has to be inserted into the cell nucleus.

The translation problems of this example may be idiosyncratic problems, but as there are many similar cases, it will be more rewarding to look for an explanation of the difference on the basis of more examples. In a text on volcanoes, we find the researchers' complaint

(14)   that all such studies have been severely hampered by the poor
       quality of the volcanic (and climatic) records in the past.

This means that so far large-scale anomalies in the weather may or may not be related to volcanic eruptions; and

(15)   To resolve such issues, the first need is for long-term
       monitoring to establish the unperturbed state of the
       stratosphere, so that the impact of volcanoes can be assessed.
      (v57)

The copular sentence is preceded by an infinitival clause of purpose and followed by a consecutive clause. The sentence closes a paragraph that spells out the most important factors to be monitored in relation to volcanic eruptions.

If we replace need/Notwendigkeit by Aufgabe/task, we could use an almost analogous copular structure in German:

(16)   Um solche Fragen zu klaren, ist es die erste/vordringlichste
       Aufgabe, den Normalzustand der Stratosphare durch langerfristige
       Beobachtungen zu bestimmen, damit der Einflu[Beta] der Vulkane
       eingeschatzt werden kann.

But the German sentence is more than awkward, and the greatest flaw is the cleft-like structure itself. If we distribute the meaning of the copular subject, the first need, onto an adverbial and a modal verb and replace the copula by the postcopular infinitive, the sentence becomes significantly better:

(17)   Um solche Fragen zu klaren, mu[Beta] zunachst durch
       langerfristige Beobachtungen der Normalzustand der
       Stratosphare bestimmt werden, damit der Einflu[Beta] der Vulkane
       eingeschatzt werden kann.

By nominalizing the initial infinitive and rephrasing the consecutive clause as a main clause with some information-structuring adverbials, we can enhance the transparency of the German version even further:

(18)   Zur Klarung solcher Fragen mu[Beta] zunachst durch
       langerfristige Beobachtungen der Normalzustand der Stratosphare
       bestimmt werden, erst dann la[Beta]t sich die Auswirkung von
       Vulkanausbruchen wirklich einschatzen.

The pattern emerging from the analysis of the first two examples suggests that the specifying element of the English "subject" is replaced in German by an adverbial -- the dummy head itself may be recategorized as a modal verb that modalizes the main verb replacing the original infinitive. Except for the modal part, the pattern of adverbializing of precopular part and raising of postcopular part reoccurs in many of the German translations of English copular structures.

In general, it depends on the context as to which semantic elements of the precopular structure have to be retained in the paraphrase. The possibilities could range from none, to some, to all elements, depending on how much of the precopular information is already given in the context. Consider, for example, the following alternative case, where most of the copular structure is retained in the translation, though in a reframed form:

(19)   Another attractive theory on the activity of interferons is
       that as well as their natural role in the control of viral
       infections and their influence on the immune system, they may
       regulate normal growth and differentiation -- the process
       whereby newly produced cells become specialised into liver,
       muscle, or whatever.
       (i84)

(20)   Nach einer anderen spannenden Hypothese kann das Interferon
       neben Virusinfektionen und Immunsystem auch das Zellwachstum
       und die Zelldifferenzierung beeinflussen, den Proze[Beta]
       also, bei dem sich aus den neuen Zellen Muskeln, die Leber
       und dergleichen entwickeln.

The original subject is reframed as an adverbial, allowing us to directly attach the postcopular structure.

(21)   Another attractive theory on ... interferons is that ... they
       may regulate normal growth ...

(22)   Nach einer anderen spannenden Hypothese kann das Interferon
       ... auch das Zellwachstum ... beeinflussen ...

While the preceding example does not offer any recurring elements and requires a high degree of explicitness, the parallel structure of the next case promotes coordination reduction in addition to the copular reduction:

(23)   The term refers to oxygen competing with carbon dioxide and
       preventing its fixation; the net effect of photorespiration
       is that oxygen in the atmosphere depresses the rate of
       photosynthesis.
       (p16)

(24)   "Photorespiration" bezeichnet einen Vorgang, bei dem Sauerstoff
        die Bindung des Kohlendioxyds verhindert und damit letztendlich
        das Tempo der Photosynthese verlangsamt.

The net effect is rephrased as damit letztendlich (competing and in the atmosphere, which could be claimed to be implicated by world knowledge, have been deleted).

Let us finally look at some cases where nothing remains of the precopular structure because its head is merely pronominal. Compare the next example, where one/the other disappear from the translation together with the copular structure (the contrast being expressed by entweder/oder: either/or):

(25)   The strategies that some plants adopt to overcome these stresses
       conform to two basic principles: one is to avoid opening the
       stomata during the day when stresses are at their greatest, and
       the other is to reduce the losses due to photorespiration.
       (p35)

(26)   Dagegen haben sich bei einigen Pflanzen Schutzmechanismen
       herausgebildet, denen generell zwei Prinzipien zu Grunde liegen:
       Entweder bleiben die Stomen bei Tag, der Zeit der hochsten
       Belastung, geschlossen, oder die durch die Photorespiration
       verursachten Verluste werden moglichst niedrig gehalten.

Similarly,

(27)   This is all part of the final problem, which is to induce the
       gene properly in its new environment.
       (g21)

where the relative pronoun is deleted together with the copula, as the infinitival complement can be attached to the matrix head:

(28)   Dies sind aber nur Teile der gesamten Problematik, ein Gen in
       einer neuen Umgebung normal funktionieren zu lassen.

Except for the last two cases, where the copular subject in English consists only of a proform, all translations replaced the meaningful prenominal element of the original (in one case, even the whole subject) by an adverbial: net/letztendlich, first/zunachst, next/als nachstes; another ... theory/nach einer anderen ... Hypothese.

2.2. Lowering reduction

If the precopular structure contains a lot of information, the copular reduction into German will more often than not replace the copula by an element from the precopular structure and attach the postcopular structure by nominalization. Consider, for example,

(5)   An alternative way of getting foreign genes into a cell nucleus
      is to use the DNA of a virus as a kind of Trojan horse.

Instead of the analogous version,

(29)   Eine andere Methode, fremde Gene in den Zellkern einzufugen,
       ist (es), die DNS eines Virus als eine Art Trojanisches Pferd
       zu verwenden.

we find,

(30)   Fremde Gene lassen sich aber auch durch die Verwendung der
       DNS eines Virus, also durch eine Art Trojanisches Pferd, in den
       Zellkern bringen.

The prenominal modifier alternative is expressed by the particle auch, (that is, again, by an adverbial), the dummy noun way and the infinitive to use are condensed into the causal preposition durch, the gerund getting has been turned into the main verb bringen. The active perspective is reframed as a passive-like, reflexive perspective (lassen sich). The attachment problem that would arise with fremde Gene ... als eine Art Trojanisches Pferd is avoided by parallelizing the comparison with the causal adverbial: durch die Verwendung ... also durch eine Art Trojanisches Pferd.

Another possibility is illustrated by the following example:

(31)   The main purpose behind the development of these techniques is
       to study how the activity of genes is controlled.
       (g54)

(32)   Die verschiedenen Verfahren der Genubertragung wurden vor
       allem fur die Erforschung genetischer Steuerungsmechanismen
       entwickelt.

The modifier main is expressed by the adverbial vor allem and the nominal head purpose by fur, the complement development is recategorized as the main verb entwickelt, and the infinitive of the postcopular structure has been nominalized as Erforschung and its clausal complement reduced to a phrasal complement with a compound noun in the genitive: genetischer Steuerungsmechanismen.

In some cases, restructuring requires the "implicitation" of an adverbial if it gets into conflict with another adverbial. Thus, the sentence

(33)   The net effect for volcanic particles is usually that the
       stratosphere warms while the surface below cools.
       (v14)

has been translated as

(34)   In der Regel bewirken die Vulkanpartikeln eine Erwarmung der
       Stratosphare und eine Abkuhlung der Erdoberflache.

The modifier of the copular subject net, is not adverbialized (for example as letzten Endes or insgesamt) but simply dropped from the German version, because its combination with in der Regel, gewohnlich/usually presents a processing obstacle:

(35)   Insgesamt bewirken die Vulkanpartikeln # in der Regel eine
        Erwarmung der Stratosphare und eine Abkuhlung der
        Erdoberflache.

The sentence can be modified by insgesamt (altogether) or by in der Regel (as a rule), but not by both. However, the explicit reference to the summative function is not really necessary as the corresponding discourse relation between the sentence and its context can be read off from the preceding and subsequent sentences anyway:(5)

(36)   Aerosol particles scatter solar radiation, and this alters the
       amount of energy getting through to the ground and the way
       energy escapes back into space. The particles also absorb and
       re-emit infrared radiation from the ground on its way out into
       space. The net effect for volcanic particles is usually that
       the stratosphere warms while the surface below cools. But it
       takes several weeks for the temperature of the stratosphere
       to adjust to a change in its load of aerosol particles, while
       the surface of the Earth has so much heat capacity that it may
       take years to reach a new equilibrium.
       (v12-16)

2.3. Copula or copula-like main verb

While the majority of the translations make use of the raising or lowering pattern, there are some cases where the copular structure with its subject is retained but inverted, or the copula itself is replaced by a copula-like main verb with an oblique clausal or phrasal complement. Let me begin with the latter. The predicate bestehen in/consist of is a typical case. It could be used with a nominalized postcopular structure, as in

(37)   An alternative approach, becoming increasingly feasible, is
       to make the gene from scratch by chemically linking the
       nucleotide building blocks of DNA in the correct sequence.
       (g26)

(38)   Eine andere, zunehmend erfolgversprechende Methode besteht
       in der chemischen Zusammensetzung von Genen durch eine
       entsprechende Anordnung der DNS-Bausteine (Nukleotide).

(From scratch has been dropped from the translation; it would have to be raised stylistically, but as the idea is implicated by the remaining sentence, the translation can get along without it.) Chemically has been associated with the first verb of the postcopular structure (to make chemically ... has become chemische Zusammensetzung), linking ... in the correct sequence has become dutch ein entsprechende Anordnung, the postnominal apposition to the subject becoming increasingly feasible has been nominalized as zunehmend erfolgversprechende Methode; altogether the reduction of the copular sentence with its infinitival complement results in a simpler structure with a higher degree of informational density due to the nominalized finite verbs of the original structure.

If we replace the copula by a copula-like main verb without nominalizing its context, we may also find something like

(39)   A second possibility is that we need them all because each
       subtype has different properties.
       (i42)

(40)   Eine zweite Moglichkeit konnte darin bestehen, da[Beta] alle
       diese Varianten gebraucht werden, weil jede uber andere
       Eigenschaften verfugt.

where the insertion of a pronominal adverb, darin, provides the structural anchor for the complement clause.

Finally, there could also be a real copula in German, but the copular subject might be replaced by a predicative paraphrase:

(41)   Another possibility is that an external field would cause a
       voltage drop, particularly along the thin, high-resistance
       projections of migrating cells, which could rearrange charged
       intracellular components responsible for directing migration.
       (e 122)

(42)   Denkbar ware auch, da[Beta] ein externes Feld, besonders in den
       dunnen Verastelungen wandernder Zellen, zu Spannungsabfall
       fuhrt, wodurch sich die positiv geladenen,
       richtungsbestimmenden Zellteile neu anordnen.

The translation of the matrix clause repeats the pattern of lowering in a minimized form by reframing the subject possibility as a predicative adjective denkbar, and its specifier another as the particle auch. But the copula is retained -- although in a subjunctive form, ware -- and extended by a clausal complement, as in the original.

Something similar can be said about the following example, where the subject of the copular clause is reframed as a topicalized predicative, but the copula and its infinitival complement are retained:

(43)   One of the most direct and simplest methods is to inject the
       DNA directly into the nucleus using a very fine syringe.
       (g32)

(44)   Am einfachsten ist es, die DNS mit einer sehr feinen Kanule
       direkt in den Zellkern zu injizieren.

The last two examples demonstrate something like a minimal change of an otherwise analogous translation of copular structures into German. This is a reframing pattern with an inversion, where the original subject in its canonical position is replaced by a topicalized predicative. As the order of the referents remains the same, the difference in the structure is covert.

Inversions may also involve the subclause if the subject of the copular structure is reframed as a predicative, which takes the postcopular structure in a nominalized version as its subject:

(45)   The main surprise of Jupiter's meteorology is that it seems
       to be driven in a similar manner to terrestrial weather
       systems.
       (j65)

(46)   Am erstaunlichsten ist die offensichtliche Ahnlichkeit
       zwischen den Antriebskraften der Wettersysteme von Jupiter
       und Erde.

The head of the original subject surprise has been turned into a predicative adjective erstaunlich/surprising, used in the superlative to render the modifier main. Similar manner has been reduced to Ahnlichkeit/similarity, hedged by the adjective offensichtlich, which is taken from the finite verb of the original that clause, seems. The infinitival complement to be driven is replaced by a nominalized compound Antriebskrafte, used as a complement to Ahnlichkeit and specified by a genitive noun phrase referring to the domain of the comparison: der Wettersysteme von Jupiter und Erde.

3. Generalizing and explaining the data

There were three basic classes of restructuring copular cleft-like sentences in the German translations. By far the majority of the cases eliminated the copular structure altogether, using elements either from the postcopular or from the precopular material as a substitute for the copula. Two minor subgroups retained the copular structure in the translation, but these cases, too, deviated from the English original as they either used a copular substitute (a copular main verb) or inverted the original order of the copular sentence or its matrix clause.

We can say that the type of copular sentence resembling clefts in English is avoided in German. If German does make use of a copular structure in its prototypical form with be, it will be an inverted copular structure. As the English original uses a similar distribution of the discourse referents in a canonical copular structure, we will subsume this difference under the heading of "alternative perspective."

3.1. Shifting the perspective

Doherty (1996) describes basic types of shift in perspective between English and German translations, where English projects semantically lower roles into the subject, while German uses passive, reflexive, or unergative verbs, reframing the subject as an adverbial. Reframing the subject as adverbial was also made use of in one of the previous cases of copula deletion (examples [19] and [20]).

As Doherty (1996) argues, the difference between the preferred perspective in English and German is due to the greater configurationality of English, restricting, above all, topicalization, which is almost unrestricted in German. To some extent, the constraints are compensated by lexical transfer in English, which has in many cases fewer selection restrictions than German and permits projection into the subject of lower roles like place, time, instrument, cause, etc.

The translations of the cleft-like copular sentences in sections 2.1-2.3 suggest that the difference observed between the use of German and English copular sentences is just another instance of the different perspective of a more configurational and a more nonconfigurational language. That is, we can assume that English permits projection of what would be the predicative of an equative relation into the subject, raising a lower role into the syntactically highest position. German predicative roles, on the other hand, are only realized as syntactic predicatives, which will then require topicalization if the referent is to occupy a position in the sentence similar to that of the English subject. (This may have a number of awkward consequences in the case of complex sentences, requiring the more drastic changes illustrated under the headings of "raising" and "lowering.")

But the idea of "inverted" copular sentences in German may not sound very convincing. After all, copular sentences like

(39)   A second possibility is that we need them all because each
       subtype has different properties.

and

(47)   Eine zweite Moglichkeit konnte sein, da[Beta] wir sie alle
       brauchen, weil jede Variante andere Eigenschaften hat.

do look quite similar. Nevertheless, as the following observation will show, there is a clue in German suggesting that the English and the German versions differ.

With nominal phrases, it is very difficult to tell the two syntactic functions apart, as subject and predicative are both in the nominative. The only clue we have is the agreement between subject and finite verb in German. If we have a sentence like

(48)   Der schwachste Punkt sind die fehlenden Angaben.

we know that the postcopular phrase is the subject. The use of a
predicative adjective in the precopular position tells us the same;
recall the example

(46)   Am erstaunlichsten ist die offensichtliche Ahnlichkeit ...

The adjectival version is very close to the nominal version:

(49)   Das Erstaunlichste ist die offensichtliche Ahnlichkeit ...

which could, by itself, be analyzed as a subject. But then there is the criterion of agreement in (48), which tells us clearly that what looks like an initial subject can be the predicative of the copular structure. Thus, we can extend the predicative analysis of the adjectival version in (46) onto the nominal version in (49).

In English, things are different. The finite verb agrees with the initial noun phrase:

(50)   The weakest point is the missing figures.

We will therefore identify the initial noun phrase with the subject of the copula sentence. In fact, as English does not normally allow topicalization of a predicative, we can generally assume that the noun phrases in the precopular position are subjects. On the basis of embedding constraints, Heycock and Kroch (1998) arrive at the same conclusion: English (which admits fronted predicatives under special conditions) does not admit any inverted equative, in contrast to a language like Italian -- and German, we may add.(6)

But the few proper equatives we did find in the translations not only deviated from their English counterparts in terms of ordering, they did not make use of a nominal dummy in the precopular part, or if they did use an analogous nominal phrase they did not use a clause or clauselike postcopular structure. Recall also that the nominal subject of

(43)   One of the most direct and simplest methods is to ...

became an adjectival predicative

(44)   Am einfachsten ist es ...

just as

(45)   The main surprise ... is that ...

became

(46)   Am erstaunlichsten ist die offensichtliche Ahnlichkeit ...

The one and only example that has retained the initial nominal phrase of the original is

(51)   The greatest flaw of all similar analyses is that none provides
       an estimate of the amount of sulphur injected, in the form of
       one compound or another, into the stratosphere.
       (v26)

(52)   Der schwachste Punkt aller solcher Analysen sind die fehlenden
       Angaben uber die Schwefelmenge, die in Form verschiedener
       Verbindungen in die Stratosphare gelangt.

The translation "nominalizes" the postcopular structure by condensing its negative subject and finite verb into an adjective: none provides (an estimate)/die fehlenden Angaben. There can be no doubt that this version is far better than a more analogous structure:

(53)   Der schwachste Punkt aller solcher Analysen ist, da[Beta]
       sie keine Angaben machen uber die Schwefelmenge, die in Form
       verschiedener Verbindungen in die Stratosphare gelangt.

And there can be no doubt that the copular structure in German example (52) has undergone reframing, that is, the same order of referents is presented in an inverted copular structure beginning with the predicative, and not with the subject as in the English original, (51). German clearly avoids the canonical copular cleft-like structure of English

But what is it that makes equative sentences with dummy nouns in the precopular structure and postcopular clauses or clause-like structures so much less popular in German than in English?

3.2. Optimizing processing

Processing effort is measured by the degree of novelty a message has for its receiver, but also by the effort that goes into the decoding of the language structure. As the modular approach of psycholinguistics demonstrates, there are various modules acting on the phonetic, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects of a linguistic input incrementally and to some extent serially. Although the time lag between the various modules measures 200 to 600 ms, as shown by the neurophysiological measurements of ERPs (event-related brain potentials), processing errors can lead into garden paths requiring reanalyses, which will be more or less time consuming and may, occasionally, lead to a total breakdown if the processing error cannot be resolved.(7)

The processing mechanism ought to be the same universally, but different languages mean different conditions for processing. Even if two languages have very much the same array of linguistic categories available, they may differ in major aspects of sentence structure. For example, except for some extraordinary cases requiring subject-auxiliary inversion, we can expect the preverbal noun phrase to be the subject of the English sentence. This is different in German, where we can place almost anything into the initial position, before the verb.

But processing strategies can be assumed to follow a default rule and analyze a noun phrase that looks like a nominative as the subject of the sentence.(8) Thus, the analogous structure of

(43)   One of the most direct and simplest methods is to inject the DNA
       directly into the nucleus using a very fine syringe.

in German,

(54)   Eine der einfachsten Methoden ist es, die DNS in den Zellkern zu
       injizieren.

misleads us into identifying the first noun phrase with the subject of the sentence, which will cause some confusion in the interpretation of the expletive pronoun. In reality, es is a trace of the extraposed infinitive, the real subject of the sentence. Bringing the infinitival structure back into subject position eliminates the need for the expletive element.(9)

(55)   Die DNS in den Zellkern zu injizieren ist eine der einfachsten
       Methoden.

Yet the basic order may not be discourse-appropriate, and if the discourse requires an inversion, the nominal version of the predicative causes a processing problem. We can avoid the problem by choosing a nonnominal form for the predicative:

(44)   Am einfachsten ist es ...

However, such a straightforward case seems to be the exception. The majority of the examples are not only reframed in the translation but also reordered so that the topic positions of the original and the translation are filled by different referents. The different preferences are related to the discourse-dependent properties of sentence meaning that are subsumed under the concept of information structure.

If we take a sentence like

(31)   The main purpose behind the development of these techniques is
       to study how the activity of genes is controlled.

we can partly hypothesize upon its information structure on the basis of three formal clues.(10) The demonstrative pronoun of these techniques signals givenness, the inherently contrastive meaning of main signals focus (within topic, see below) and the equative relation between the subject and the predicative after the copula signals another focus within the element identifying the main purpose. As there is no internal argument in the interrogative complement of the infinitive, we will associate the focus of the complement with controlled. This is the grammatical focus exponent, which means that we can expect the focus to be wide and include some of the preceding elements, that is, to project to the left.

The extension of the projection is determined by the context, which we have to turn to anyway to check the result of our formally based focus interpretation.(11) The context contains several of the remaining elements of (31) -- explicitly or implicitly. The sentence opens the twelfth paragraph of a text that deals with inserting purified copies of genes into the cell nucleus. The immediately preceding and subsequent context says,

(56)   Regardless of the method used to get foreign DNA into a cell
       nucleus, it seems that once inside the nucleus some of the DNA
       will automatically become integrated into the chromosomes. At
       the moment, however, there is little control over where this
       integration occurs or how many copies of a gene become
       integrated.

       The main purpose behind the development of these techniques
       is to study how the activity of genes is controlled. Every cell
       in a complex organism like a human contains the same genetic
       information. A muscle cell and a neuron in the brain contain
       exactly the same genes and yet they look very different and
       perform very different functions.

       This specialisation of cells must be achieved by ensuring that
       only those genes needed for a particular cell's function are
       active in that cell. How this control of gene activity is
       brought about is one of the greatest challenges in modern
       biology. (g52-58

The copular sentence at the beginning of the second paragraph shifts the discourse topic from the techniques of transferring genes to control of gene activity, identifying the research of the latter as the main purpose behind the development of the former. The contextual analysis suggests that the focus exponent (controlled) projects onto the whole infinitival complement. As to the matrix clause, we can say that main is the only new concept in the precopular structure, while the development of these techniques and the purposes behind it were exemplified in the preceding paragraphs and constitute the topic of the sentence:

(31)   [Top The main purpose behind the development of these techniques
       is] [F to study how the activity of genes is CONTROLLED].

Following Buring's (1996) definition of sentence topics, S-topics, we could consider the precopular structure a partitive S-topic associated with an alternative set of purposes, the main one being identified with the focused predicative.(12) And this is, as it seems, a prototypical case. The net effect, the major problem, the greatest flaw, the first need, etc.: most of the copular structures begin with such a partitive topic to be identified with the focus in the postcopular structure.

Avoiding the processing difficulties of the inverted equative in the translation

(57)   Das Hauptziel bei der Entwicklung dieser Verfahren ist es,
       herauszufinden, wie genetische Mechanismen gesteuert werden.

we may restructure the sentence in a noncopular version, reframing the
matrix clause,

(58)   Die Entwicklung dieser Verfahren zielte vor allem darauf ab,
       herauszufinden, wie genetische Mechanismen gesteuert werden.

or with a much more condensed, nominalized version of the complement, which allows us to recategorize development/Entwicklung as the main verb of the sentence:

(59)   Die verschiedenen Verfahren wurden vor allem fur die Erforschung
       der Mechanismen genetischer Steuerung entwickelt.

This can be further improved, cutting down on the number of genitive noun phrases with the help of a compound:

(32)   Die verschiedenen Verfahren wurden vor allem fur die Erforschung
       genetischer Steuerungsmechanismen entwickelt.

The partitive feature in the original topic has been reframed as a focusing element, vor allem, which projects the focus it attracts onto the element in its scope, in particular the focus exponent of the prepositional phrase Steuerungsmechanismen and its projection onto the whole phrase fur die Erforschung genetischer Steuerungsmechanismen. The translation does not retain the partitive topic of the original, but the idea of an alternative set of purposes has been transferred from the topic to the comment of the sentence.

(32)   Die verschiedenen Verfahren wurden vor allem [Ffur die
       Erforschung genetischer STEUERUNGSmechanismen entwickelt].

The narrow focus on main in the English topic applies to the predicative (via copula and dummy head of the subject) in very much the same way as the focusing adverbial vor allem applies to the elements in its scope. As a whole, the contents of translation and original could be said to be equivalent despite the differences between their internal structures.

3.3. A minor loss

But the similarity does not hold if we retranslate the German version into English. In

(60)   The different techniques have primarily been developed for the
       analysis of genetic control.

we have lost some of the content of the original message:

(31)   The main purpose behind the development of these techniques is
       to study how the activity of genes is controlled.

Without the partitive topic and the copular structure, the information structure of (60) seems to be much "flatter" than that of (31).

Things do not get better if we extend the prepositional object of (60) into a final infinitive with an interrogative complement, that is, use the postcopular structure of the original:

(61)   The different techniques have primarily been developed to study
       how the activity of genes is controlled.

One of the main problems of (61) seems to reside in the complexity of the infinitival phrase and the focusing adverbial primarily. Without it, the sentence is better:

(62)   The different techniques have been developed to study how the
       activity of genes is controlled.

And with a nominal purpose everything is quite transparent:

(63)   The different techniques have been developed for the analysis of
       genetic control.

However, this time, deletion of the adverbial yields a sentence with a different meaning. The idea of an alternative set of purposes can no longer be associated with (63). But (60) does imply an alternative set -- so what is wrong with (60)? Quite simply, (60) does not have the discourse function of (31).

Following Mats Rooth, (1999) we can say that clefts have an existential presupposition associated with their focus, while the focus of nonclefts presupposes merely an open proposition with a variable.(13) If this extends onto cleft-like sentences, we have to assume that the original copular sentence with its partitive topic is associated with an existential presupposition, which the reduced German version and its retranslated counterpart in English fail to express.

The difference could be considered negligible if the existential presupposition did not have the effect of signaling the discourse relevance of its sentence. Presupposing that there is a purpose, x, for the development of these techniques (which is the main purpose for the analysis of genetic control), we introduce an abstract object into the discourse that had not been mentioned explicitly before. But purpose is anchored to the preceding passages of the text by these techniques, which means that it can be accommodated by world knowledge. This gives the cleft-like sentence a special discourse effect.(14) Since purpose is implicated by all discourse segments on the development of genetic techniques, the copular sentence with its partitive topic establishes a discourse relation that covers a large segment of the preceding context, attributing to the topic a greater discourse relevance than the noncleft version of (60), which does not presuppose a set of alternative topic values.

Thus, the discourse segments carved out by the partitive topic of the copular structure reach beyond the context of the preceding sentence, giving the copular sentence a greater textual relevance. This is a property copular cleft-like sentences share with real cleft sentences. Yet the new referent is to be replaced by the predicative of the copular sentence, which suggests that the function of the cleft-like structure is merely to indicate a greater shift in the discourse topic. It is striking that many of the examples open new paragraphs.

What serves as a discourse structural clue, optimizing processing in English, becomes a processing problem in German. As was demonstrated by the translation of (43) and (31) above, the special properties of the copular structure in German cause parsing difficulties with the very first constituent of the sentence. To avoid the processing difficulties of the inverted equative, the translation is restructured, yielding a topic, die verschiedenen Verfahren/the different techniques, which no longer carries the discourse-structuring property of the English original with its partitive topic. But the semantics of the German subject with its distributive plural interpretation establishes a discourse relation between the focus of the sentence, vor allem [fur die Erforschung genetischer Steuerungsmechanismen entwickelt], and the previous instances of Verfahren/techniques, which could be claimed to carve out the same segment of the context as the English partitive topic.

In fact, all the German translations with superlatives or other elements semantically associated with alternative sets contribute to a similar result of discourse integration and segmentation in German as the partitive topics of the English sentences. Yet unlike the cleft-like copular structure in English, the German translations do not provide an extra form to signal the textual relevance of the sentence. Thus, while the English readers know from the very form of the sentence that it is going to bring a major shift in discourse topic, the German readers have to figure this out afterward, when they integrate the result of the semantic interpretation contextually.

However, the extra effort can be considered irrelevant when we compare it with the costly reanalyses necessary for "analogous" translations of English cleft-like copular structures into German. The restructured version clearly optimizes processing conditions for the German reader. English, on the other hand, can afford the extra effort of an overt discourse-structuring device, the copular "cleft" structure, which can be processed without the reanalyses required for the inverted copular versions in German.

3.4. Bare subjects and pseudoreferents

There are two other types of copular structure with "dummy" topic in English that resemble the cleft-like sentences to some extent. There are, first, examples that do not begin with a partitive topic but use an abstract subject without any specifying modifier. Humpty Dumpty's rejoinder,

(64)   The question is which is to be master.

presents such a case of a bare copular subject. Bare subjects occur less often than partitive topics, and their translations into German are much more straightforward than those of complex subjects. However, the bare subject, too, is not translated analogously, it is recategorized as the main verb of the matrix clause. Although hardly noticeable due to the brevity of the structure, the categorial change yields a shift in perspective.

If we consider the English subject in (64) an abstract referent used to assign greater textual relevance to the question following it (compare section 4 below), we can explain the structural changes of the German translations along the lines suggested above for partitive topics. That is, we will assume that an analogous translation presents the predicative in initial position. Hence the sentence

(65)   Die Frage ist, wer der Starkere ist.

is an inversion of

(66)   Wer der Starkere ist, ist die Frage.

But the basic version is clearly discourse-inappropriate as it presents the informational elements in the wrong order. We expect the more relevant element (in this case, the more specific element) after the less relevant one. Consequently, the interrogative clause will be extraposed in the interests of discourse-appropriateness:

(67)   Es ist die Frage, wer der Starkere ist.

which can then be categorially lowered into

(68)   Es fragt sich, wer der Starkere ist.

or, with a bit of irony resulting from the insertion of nur (and the
violation of the maxim of truth),

(69)   Es fragt sich nur, wer der Starkere ist.

Now, (68) is preferred to (65) and the reason is the same as in all the other cases of copular structures: the initial position of the abstract noun in (65) promotes a subject interpretation, which has to be corrected into a predicative interpretation afterward. This deficiency could be considered marginal, as nothing depends upon the correct identification of subject and predicative in this sentence. But there can be no doubt that the recategorized and reordered version, with the reflexive verb,

(68)   Es fragt sich, wer der Starkere ist.

is clearly preferred to

(65)   Die Frage ist, wer der Starkere ist.

The stylistic shortcomings of the analogous version could be due to the repetition of the copula. But this is not the main reason for the preferred recategorizing of the abstract noun. The preceding sentence varies the verbs, yet it is subjected to the same changes:

(70)   The question is whether you can make words mean so many
       different things.

is translated as

(71)   Es fragt sich nur, ob man Worter einfach etwas anderes
       hei[Beta]en lassen kann.

and not as

(72)   Die Frage ist nur, ob man Worter einfach etwas anderes
       hei[Beta]en lassen kann.

However subtle the difference between the copular and the noncopular version may be, it fits in nicely with all the other cases of copular sentences we have looked at.

The second type of copular structure with dummy topic belongs to the canonical cleft sentences. It is the pseudocleft, which is needed for a particular type of topic that cannot be projected into a subject.

In his critical essay, "The zero medium" (1997), Enzensberger says about the electronic media,

(73)   Neu an den neuen Medien ist die Tatsache, da[Beta] sie auf
       Programme nicht mehr angewiesen sind.

which would be something like

(74)   New about the new media is (the fact) that they no longer depend
       on programs.

The original is an inverted copular sentence; the basic sentence would be

(75)   Die Tatsache, da[Beta] sie auf Programme nicht mehr angewiesen
       sind, ist neu an den neuen Medien

Topicalizing the predicative adjective phrase in (73) does not produce any processing difficulties, but it has the effect of placing a contrastive focus in the topic (independent of the focus in the comment of the sentence). Topicalizing a predicative in English is not possible, but projecting it into the subject should be possible if we could find an appropriate noun for the adjective phrase. Yet the usual dummies fail:

(76)   The new aspect/element/property ... of the new media is that

The relation between the prenominal and the postnominal new is definitorial and not partitive.

But English has the potential to compensate for the topicalization constraints in yet another way. The official translation of (77) is a (pseudo) cleft:

(77)   What's new about the new media is that ...

The abstract referent is provided by a second copular structure, which takes the interrogative pronoun what as a proform for the copular subject. Altogether the matrix clause of the pseudocleft requires the reader to create a referent from the interrogative proposition. We could call it a pseudoreferent and add it to the range of explicit abstract referents used to improve processing conditions for the interpretation of discourse relations.

4. Abstract referents

Abstract nouns are structural nuclei of phrases or clauses; they can be modified by various pre- and postnominal structures carrying all semantic and pragmatic information needed to localize the abstract referent in the preceding discourse. Used as subjects of complex copular sentences, they can serve to move the discourse topic on. In contrast to the incremental steps characterizing discourse progress from sentence to sentence, the copular move comprises larger segments of the discourse, which it helps to identify as constituents of major discourse relations.(15) As the examples with partitive topics showed, most of the relations are of a parallel or contrastive nature (which is also reflected in the corresponding functions of the adverbials/particles or superlatives used in the translations: auch/also; vor allem/primarily, zunachst/at first, letztendlich/in the end; am einfachsten/ ... simplest, am erstaunlichsten/ ... most surprising).

Copular sentences with bare subjects contribute the explicit referent to the discourse relations of the proposition they introduce: (the) question, assumption, consensus, reason ... (is ...). Referring to a higher level of discourse, they serve to indicate progress of discourse on this level, which amounts to a shift from propositional to attitudinal discourse segmentation.

Copular sentences with wh clauses as subjects (pseudoclefts) contribute a propositional referent with an open slot (a variable) for the identifying proposition of the complement. Like all cleft sentences, pseudoclefts are associated with an existential presupposition that characterizes the variable as an element of an alternative set. Thus, their discourse-structuring function is partly similar to that of copular sentences with partitive topics. (Doherty [1999, 2000] demonstrate the macrostructural discourse function of it and wh clefts.)

Summarizing the major effect of clefts and cleft-like structures on discourse, we can say that all of them serve as discourse-structuring indicators, helping to optimize sentence processing in terms of discourse integration.

But why are clefts and cleft-like structures much more popular in English than in German? This question has been answered to some extent in the previous sections, by pointing out the different processing conditions of the alternative between the perspectives of the canonical copular sentence in English and the inverted copular sentence in German. The processing difficulties of the inverted order (predicative noun before subject) make us prefer noncopular paraphrases in German, where the abstract copular subject is categorially toned down or altogether deleted.

This constraint does not apply to clefts: most pseudoclefts can be translated analogously into German. For example, we could retranslate

(77)   What's new about the new media is that ...

as

(78)   Was neu ist an den neuen Medien ist die Tatsache, da[Beta] ...

But the result is obviously redundant in comparison to the original:

(73)   Neu an den neuen Medien ist die Tatsache, da[Beta] ...

The latter requires less processing effort for the same message. The topicalized predicative adjective phrase allows the reader to identify the contrastive topic at once. German does not need the cleft, it can make use of the structurally more economical device of reordering to achieve similar information-structuring effects.

The discussion of the examples has shown that retranslations into English of the reduced German versions meet with processing problems, the major ones being that

1. there are no corresponding adverbials to match the structural conditions of the individual sentences;

2. there are tighter constraints on reordering (especially on topicalizing); and

3. subcategorization properties of the substitute category for bare subjects, for example of a copula-like main verb, constrain embedding of clausal complements because English does not have pronominal adverbs like German darin, damit, etc. Compare

(39)   A second possibility is that we need them all because each
       subtype has different properties.

and

(40)   Eine zweite Moglichkeit konnte darin bestehen, da[Beta] alle
       diese Varianten gebraucht werden, weil jede uber andere
       Eigenschaften verfugt.

with

(79)   A second possibility consists in *that/#the fact that/#the
       possibility that ...

German does not favor abstract nouns or complex copular structures as much as English, yet it also makes use of clefts, and it retains some of the "redundancy" of cleft-like structures in translating from English. That is, German, too, uses a greater degree of structural explicitness if this helps to optimize discourse integration in terms of topic and focus identification.

Let me present some cases where the more explicit structure is retained in the German translation. For example, we would not make use of a structural reduction if the head of the precopular structure itself were contrasted. Theoretically, a case like

(80)   The main difference between them is how effective the interferon
       of one species will be in another, that is their cross species
       specificity.
       (i44)

could be subjected to the lowering pattern and translated as

(81)   Sie unterscheiden sich vor allem in ihrer Ubertragbarkeit auf
       andere Arten, das hei[Beta]t in ihrer artenubergreifenden
       Wirksamkeit.

But the translation would not be contextually appropriate, as the original is preceded by the sentence

(82)   The different subtypes are now being studied, and so far
       they seem to share most biological activities.
       (i43)

which means that the text is about common properties of different subtypes and not about differences between them. That is, the contrastive stress has to be assigned to difference and not to main:

(80)   The main difference between them is ...

Consequently, we cannot lower the categorial status of difference in the translation as in (81) but need the noun as an explicit focus exponent:

(83)   Der Hauptunterschied zwischen ihnen liegt in ihrer
       Ubertragbarkeit auf andere Arten, das hei[Beta]t in ihrer
       artenubergreifenden Wirksamkeit.

There are, however, cases where even defocused nouns of partitive topics will be retained in the translation rather than recategorized. The above sentences are taken from a passage about the question of why there are so many different alpha interferons:

(84)   Why do we need all these different [Alpha] interferons? There
       are several possibilities. It may be that many proteins have
       different "copies." However, current knowledge of other common
       cell proteins would not suggest this as an explanation.
       (i37-41)

This is followed by the copular structure

(85)   A second possibility is that we need them all because each
       subtype has different properties.
       (i42)

We could, again, dissolve the copular structure in German, using a modal verb instead of the abstract noun and the particle auch/also for the modifier:

(86)   Alle diese Varianten konnten aber auch gebraucht werden, weil
       jede uber andere Eigenschaften verfugt.

In the context of (84), the translation is semantically equivalent. But (84) presented the first possibility (together with a comment) in two sentences, which means that there is no immediate alternative for (86). This makes us prefer the version with an explicit reference to the second possibility instead of the mere implications of the particle auch/also in (86):

(40)   Eine zweite Moglichkeit konnte darin bestehen, da[Beta] alle
       diese Varianten gebraucht werden, weil jede uber andere
       Eigenschaften verfugt.

Although the copula is avoided in (83) and (40) by the use of a copula-like main verb, the abstract subject is retained in both examples in the interest of discourse appropriateness, which means focus identification in (83) and topic identification in (40).

The optimal use of abstract topics may even depend on format conditions. Just recall that the translation of

(5)   An alternative way of getting foreign genes into a cell nucleus
      is to use the DNA of a virus as a kind of Trojan horse.

did make use of copular reduction with the particle auch/also:

(30)   Fremde Gene lassen sich aber auch durch die Verwendung der
       DNS eines Virus als eine Art Trojanisches Pferd in den Zellkern
       bringen.

The different translation patterns of (40) and (30) are due to the different graphic embeddings and their discourse-structuring impact. Examples (85)/(40) belong to a sequence of sentences within one paragraph. If we used the translation without the explicit reference to a second possibility, we would need some extra effort to figure out the discourse function of the sentence, which introduces a new topic. In contrast to this, (5)/(30) open a new paragraph, where we can expect a new topic anyway.

But the graphic aspect, too, is subject to further conditions. For example, if the copular sentence opening a new paragraph contains a lot of information, there is no clear-cut preference for the explicit or the reduced translation. Although we could reduce the copular structure of

(37)   An alternative approach, becoming increasingly feasible, is
       to make the gene from scratch by chemically linking the
       nucleotide building blocks of DNA in the correct sequence.

making use of auch/also:

(87)   Gene lassen sich auch -- und zunehmend besser -- durch eine
       entsprechende Anordnung der DNS-Bausteine (Nukleotide)
       chemisch zusammensetzen.

the more analogous translation with the copular-like main verb is, at
least, equally appropriate:

(38)   Eine andere, zunehmend erfolgversprechende Methode besteht in
       der chemischen Zusammensetzung von Genen durch eine
       entsprechende Anordnung der DNS-Bausteine (Nukleotide).

Summarizing the observations in section 4, we can say that there is a natural demand for discourse-structuring abstract elements in both languages, but the constraints against the cleft-like copular structure in German restrict the use of dummy nouns as abstract referents. This restriction is controlled by other, superordinate conditions of language processing: informational density, graphic display, etc. If none of these superordinate conditions applies, abstract subjects of cleft-like copular structures will be toned down to pronouns (damit, [23]), recategorized as (modal) verbs (mussen, [15]; sich lassen, [5], [37]; bewirken, [33]), as adjectives (denkbar, [41]; erstaunlich, [45]; einfach, [43]), or dropped altogether (as in [25] or [27]) where the English original is a mere proform of a fully lexicalized antecedent. (The changes of the remaining pre- and postcopular structures were summarized under sections 2.1-2.3.)

Humboldt University

Received 15 May 2000
Revised version received
20 December 2000

Notes

(*) Correspondence address: Institut fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Ubersetzungswissenschaft, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: [e-mail].

(1.) Although it would be preferable to use discrete terms when we refer to linguistic data, linguistic data share the property of most phenomena conceived, they evoke fuzzy concepts radiating around prototypical cores. By extending a core concept onto related phenomena, we may uncover more general principles controlling a wider array of data. The general denominator of clefts and cleft-like sentences: double-clause structure with an extra focusing function, which is carried by a structural proposition with an existential presupposition and is varied by the internal and external conditions of the individual cleft(-like) sentence. Most cleft(-like) structures are grammatically available in English and German, but their uses differ, as English and German are parametrically varied language systems. The paper will demonstrate this by a detailed analysis of cleft-like sentences in English and their German translations.

(2.) The number (g116) refers to the 116th sentence of a text on genetics from the Berlin translation corpus, which was built up in the course of three successive DFG-sponsored research projects on grammatically parameterized aspects of word order, case frame, and structural explicitness in translations between English and German. "Cleft-like sentences" is a product of the last project focusing on cleft sentences. (All corpus data can be accessed through inquiry via e-mail: [e-mail].)

(3.) Focus and topic are basic concepts for the discussion of discourse functions of sentences. There is a formal and a functional side to them, which have to match the context of the sentence. A synopsis of the most relevant theoretical assumptions will be given later on with the more detailed analyses of some of the examples (compare notes 10-12).

(4.) The paraphrase can be considered roughly equivalent if one admits contextual accommodation: as the whole discourse segment containing (g31) was introduced by a survey of the problems of genetic engineering, the new topic of gene insertion can be expected to be the "next problem."

(5.) Strictly speaking, it will never be the same to say something explicitly or to merely imply or implicate it. Although world knowledge may allow us to think of an implicature, there is no guarantee that the reader will be aware of this implicature. But translation is always a trade-off between surface equivalence (that is, formal analogy and semantic-pragmatic equivalence with the original) and target-language appropriateness. While a default maxim of translation places appropriateness above equivalence, the relevance of the individual feature for the discourse decides upon the extent to which the features of the original can be sacrificed in the interest of target-language appropriateness.

(6.) "English has both inverted and canonical-order predicative sentences, but only canonical-order equative sentences. The agreement facts show that there are no inverted equatives, that is to say equative sentences in which the second argument of the equative function is fronted as predicates are fronted" (1998: 80). The main criteria -- in addition to binding and agreement -- are embedded contexts that do or do not allow fronted predicatives (like I think vs. I wonder, if or yes-no questions) but allow equative sentences freely.

(7.) For a short introduction into the architecture of the language processor, compare Frazier (1999: 3ff.). Looking at discourse functions and the processing problems arising from contextually inappropriate translations, we can explain some of the deficiencies of analogous translations as discursive garden paths, requiring reanalyses in terms of information structure. As the discussion of the translations shows, the primary module to determine processing ease in these cases is the syntactic module.

(8.) Friederici (1998: 180) gives a short survey of the psycholinguistic explanations that have been put forward for the subject-first preference, all of which could be subsumed under a principle of simple structure building.

(9.) The use of the expletive pronoun signals the derivational nature of (54). But there are cases where the pronoun is optional, as for example in

(53)   Der schwachste Punkt aller solcher Analysen ist (es),
       da[Beta] sie keine Angaben machen ...

Yet this is only a possibility for a matrix clause with a
topicalized predicative; the canonical order is not possible
without the expletive pronoun:

(53')   Es ist der schwachste Punkt aller solcher Analysen,
        da[Beta] sie ...

(10.) The assumption followed here is that the prosodic indicator of the focus exponent is not available in written language, which forces the processor to hold onto certain lexical and structural indicators of focus in its first attempt to identify the focus exponents of a sentence. While lexical elements, like only, assign focus to constituents in their scope or express inherently focused concepts, like for example superlatives, syntactic structures assign focus in certain grammatical configurations, for example to a verb-adjacent focusable element in the verb phrase (see Jacobs 1988: Rosengren 1991 Abraham 1992; etc.).

(11.) Although there are some clues, like definite noun phrases and pronouns, or modal particles and sentence adverbials, that indicate givenness or novelty and thus, to some extent, background and focus, the information structure of a sentence is contextually determined. It is the context that decides upon the focus interpretation of a sentence. As the focus may comprise more than one element of the sentence structure, we say that the focus feature assigned to the focus exponent projects onto other elements of the sentence. The extension of the focus projection is determined contextually. Analogous translations -- or, as it were, poorly written original texts -- may use the formal indicators inappropriately, leading the processor into an information-structural garden path (compare Doherty 1991 e.g.). Doherty (1999) suggests distinguishing between a structural, formal focus interpretation and a contextual one, where the latter requires reanalysis of the former if the two fall apart. This view extends the modular approach to processing onto an information-structural module.

(12.) Buring restricts his concept of topic to constituents containing a certain type of pitch-accent alternative to the accent associated with focus interpretation. The distinction goes back to Jackendoff's (1972) concepts of A- and B-focus.

(13.) Referring to his own analysis from 1992, Rooth (1999: 234f.) says that "the cleft contributes a presupposition that something has property P and an assertion that X is an exhaustive list of things that have property P.... intonational focus has a meaning that is weaker than that of a cleft ... (it) contributes a set C of propositions that ... is a set of alternatives to the assertion .... In this semantics for focus the existential presupposition found for clefts is absent." Although (60) does not have a contrastive focus like Rooth's "intonational focus," it implies a set of alternatives by the very meaning of primarily. But these alternatives are not associated with an existential presupposition like those in (31).

(14.) Prince (1978: 883) speaks of a variety of clefts where "the presupposed part represents information which the speaker takes to be a known fact though definitely NOT known to the hearer." Delin (1992, 1995) distinguishes between a grammatical and a prosodic information structure of clefts and interprets the grammatically expressed presupposition as an appeal to common knowledge that may not be shared by the hearer. The discourse structuring effect of clefts (and cleft-like sentences) suggests that the appeal to common knowledge may well be seen as an appeal to what the speaker/author had introduced into the discourse earlier.

(15.) The way we can imagine the construction of such segmented discourse relations is spelled out in Asher (1993), especially in chapters 7-9. Proceeding from this theoretical frame, Fabricius-Hansen (1999) shows how the DRS/SDRS concepts can help to illuminate the language-specific differences in "incremental discourse organisation" of original and translated texts. The way in which aspects of focus interpretation could be added to the representations is pointed out in Asher (1999), where he demonstrates the interaction between focus and discourse, exemplifying it by parallel and contrast relations.

References

Abraham, Werner (1992). Clausal focus versus discourse rhema in German: a programmatic view. Language and Cognition 2, 1-19.

Asher, Nicholas (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

--(1999). Discourse and the focus/background distinction. In Focus, Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (eds.), 247-267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buring, Daniel (1997). The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London and New York: Routledge.

Delin, Judy L. (1992). Aspects of Cleft Constructions in Discourse. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 "Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen fur die Computerlinguistik," Bericht 19. Stuttgart and Tubingen: University of Stuttgart and University of Tubingen.

--(1995). Presuppositions and shared knowledge in it-clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(25), 97-120.

Doherty, Monika (1991). Informationelle Holzwege. Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 84, 30-49.

--(1996). Passive perspectives: different preferences in English and German -- a result of parameterized processing. Linguistics 34(3), 591-643.

--(1999). Clefts in translations between English and German. Target 11 (2), 289-315.

--(2000). Optimizing parsing and discourse linking by clefts. In Paradigmenwechsel in der Translation. Festschrift fur Albrecht Neubert zum 70. Geburtstag, Peter A. Schmitt (ed.), 41-55. Tubingen: Stauffenburg.

Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (1999). Information packaging and translation: aspects of translational sentence splitting (German-English/Norwegian). Studia Grammatica 47, 175-214.

Frazier, Lyn (1999). On Sentence Interpretation. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer.

Friederici, Angela M. (1998). Diagnosis and reanalysis: two processing aspects the brain may differentiate. In Reanalysis in Sentence Processing, Janet Dean Fodor and Fernanda Ferreira (eds.), 177-200. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer.

Heycock, Caroline; and Kroch, Anthony (1998). Inversion and equation in copular sentences. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10, 71-87.

Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jacobs, Joachim (1988). Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung und Grammatik. In Intonationsforschungen, Hans Altmann (ed.), 89-134. Linguistische Arbeiten 200. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Prince, Ellen F. (1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54, 883-906.

Quirk, Randolph; et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Rooth, Mats (1999). Association with focus or association with presupposition? In Focus, Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (eds.), 232-246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosengren, Inger (1991). Zur Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung im Deklarativsatz und im w-Interrogativsatz. In Fragesatze und Fragen, Marga Reis and Inger Rosengren (eds.), 175-200. Linguistische Arbeiten 257. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Sperber, Dan; and Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sources

Carroll, Lewis (1963). Alice im Wunderland Berlin: Insel.

--(1968). Alice in Wonderland; Through the Looking Glass. New York: Penguin.

Eigen, Manfred; and Winkler, Ruthild (1983). Das Spiel. Munich and Zurich: Piper.

--; and Winkler, Ruthild (1983). Laws of the Game. New York: Penguin.

Enzensberger, Hans Magnus (1997). The zero medium. In Zig Zag, 304-317. New York: New Press.

Kafka, Franz (1970). Ein Hungerkunstler. In Samtliche Erzahlungen, 155-163. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

--(1988). A hunger artist. In The Metamorphosis, The Penal Colony and Other Stories, 231-234. New York: Schocken.