Universal #1890

Legacy number: 1890

 Number  1885
 Original  The Cleftability Hierarchy:
Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Oblique NP > Genitive NP > Object of Comparison.
 Standardized  IF Object of Comparison can be clefted, THEN Genitive NP can be clefted as well.
IF Genitive NP can be clefted, THEN Oblique NP can be clefted as well.
IF Oblique NP can be clefted, THEN Indirect Object can be clefted as well.
IF Indirect Object can be clefted, THEN Direct Object can be clefted as well.
IF Direct Object can be clefted, THEN Subject can be clefted as well.
 Keywords  cleft, subject, direct object, indirect, oblique, attributive, comparison
 Domain  syntax
 Type  implicational hierarchy
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical
 Basis  languages mentioned in Luo 1993
 Source  Luo 1993

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
1. In many syntactically ergative languages, ergative NPs may not be as easily cleftable as absolutive NPs. In order for an ergative NP to be cleftable, it must first become an absolutive NP through antipassivization. Referring to Comrie’s (1978) definition of ‘subject’, Luo amends the Cleftability Hierarchy thus:Subject [Acc: NP(nom.); Erg: NP (S, P)] > DO [Acc: NP(acc.); Erg: NP(A)] > IO >.... .2. In Chinese, while subject, indirect object and oblique NPs are all cleftable, direct object is not. (Luo 1993: 192)
Notes
1. A CLEFT sentence is defined as a construction in which a particlular constituent is marked by means of a syntactic and/or morphological device for the purpose of focus, contrast, or emphasis.2. Cf. Comrie & Keenan’s Accessibility Hierarchy, # 618.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. A CLEFT sentence is defined as a construction in which a particlular constituent is marked by means of a syntactic and/or morphological device for the purpose of focus, contrast, or emphasis.

2. Cf. Comrie & Keenan's Accessibility Hierarchy, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=618"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">.