Clefts can address wh-questions in referential anchoring contexts

Abstract

Cleft constructions are considered infelicitous responses to wh-questions, compared to canonical focus declaratives. This study argues for a more fine-tuned generalization, by showing clefts are indeed a viable response to a question query when the discourse establishes an identifiable witness to the queried property. Using a judgment task, we tested the acceptability of cleft versus declarative answers across three conditions: unanchored (no identifiable witness), anchored (with an identifiable witness), and corrective (revises a misidentified antecedent in prior discourse). Results showed that clefts were rated on par with declarative focus both in an anchored condition and in a corrective condition. As predicted, lower acceptability ratings were found in an unanchored context.