The cleft is informally described as an operation of extracting a constituent associated with a semantic particularity conveying an emphatic value through a presentative to a relative. It is linked to the transmission of new information. Overall, [14] defines the cleft as: “A cleft construction is a complex sentence structure consisting of a matrix clause headed by a copula and a relative-like clause whose relativized argument of the copula. Taken together, the matrix and the relative express a logically simple proposition, which can also be expressed in the form of a single clause without a change in truth conditions”.

The cleft is constructed from the movement of a constituent. This constituent moves from a low position to a high position and allows the displaced element to be distinguished from other elements of the sentence. It is in this vein that [12] explains the notion of “cleft sentence” to account for an SVO sentence in the form. “it is X that verb” allows focusing on a constituent. It is thus the fact of designating a constituent to which the speaker’s intention should be attached that probably motivated [22] to define the cleft as being able to establish a focus. As a result, focus plays an important role in syntax while assigning an informational value to the structure. The cleft is therefore a common means of expressing focus. This expression of focus presented by [14] is based on a verbal construction articulated in two segments «C’est X Qu + Verbe». Clefts thus express focus through bi-clausal constructions. It is, morever, this dual nature of focus constructions that highlights the predominance of cleft structures that require new syntactic analyses and theories, given the flexibility of natural languages. In this regard, it is not surprising that work on clefts is remarkably vast. The works of [9] and [26] are fudamentally oriented towards the study of information structure. However, studies on cleft constructions remain an unexplored area for less known languages. The Gbaya language is a striking example insofar as it is a syntactic underdog. Yet its structure requires a particular construction through specific markers that affect the linear order of the cartographic structure proposed by some scholars. This language is characterized by the interpretation of the cleft introducer as a focus marker followed by the cleft operator which occupies the relativizer’s position, which is obsolete in cleft structures.

Our study based on the idea formulated by [24] that the cleft is dependent on focus, whose primary function is to focalize a constituent, will examine how the cleft contributes to the designation of focus. The analysis will be conducted within the framework of the cartographic approach of generative grammar, aiming to describe the specifies of the language and account for both variations and the underlying principles that allow these variations. Sentence constituents are segmented into phrases with a degree of independence and are represented at the surface level through the X-bar module, which accounts for the different movements operated by constituents according to the activation principle of the syntactic category studied. Elements can move overtly (Phonological Form) or covertly (Logical Form) depending on the requirements of feature categories and the respect of syntactic properties. To this end, two questions will guide our analysis throughout this study:

How is the cleft structure realized in Gbaya?Does it require focal designation?

Throughout this study, we will meticulously analyze Gbaya data; a Niger-Congo phylum language and Adamawa-Ubangi family language spoken in the East region (dɔ̀ɔ̀ka, laï, mbodomo, bangando, etc.) and Adamaoua region (yaayuwee) in Cameroon.

This pape ris based on data from Gbaya, a language of the Adamawa-Ubangui family, group 7, Niger-Congo phylum, and Adamawa branch. Gbaya is spoken in the Adamawa region and the Eastern region of Cameroon, with significant geographical expansion in both regions. Gbaya is one of the vehicular languages in the Eastern part, with the Gbaya-dɔɔká dialevct variety. Gbaya-yaayuwéé, on the other hand, is in a diglossic situation with Fulfulde in the Adamawa region, with over 80,000 native speakers and 1200 non-native speakers.

Data collection was made possible through th Gbaya population, divided into two age groups: adolescents with an average age of 35 - 40 years and elders with an average age of 50 - 80 years. In this perspective, syntax according to [19], is a science based on empirical data, with an essentially empirico-deductive approach. According to [3], empiriscism is a philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is based on experience and recognizes no value in a priori ideas.

The deductive approach, on the other hand, is a thought process that involves going from the general to the particular. Deduction assumes that the statement is true in certain observed cases. The approach adopted here starts from the observation and analysis of data collected in the Adamawa region, namely Meiganga, Djohong, Kalaldi, Dir and Ngaoundal. Corpus consultation is subject to analysis which has been adapted to the object of study, namely speech. Additionally, our examples are drawn from our our own knowledge. As a native speaker, we have intuition regarding the grammaticality and ungrammaticality of sentences. Certain sentences are submitted to elders to confirm or refute our data.

Consider the following sentences:

(1) a. C’est la fille que je cherche

b. It ismy teacher that is the best

Examples (1a-b) display a sequence in French and English, respectively, where the elements ce and it are actually presentatives devoid of any referential mark that would lead us to believe they ana phorically express a previously introduced element. In French, as in English, the presentative is linked to the relative pronoun to form the cleft building. They combine with a copula verb (être for French and to be for English) to select a noun phrase as specified by [14]. This phrase is followed by a relativizer.

[8] criticizes [16] for being restrictive. She argues that such a definition fails to account for the diversity of cleft constructions. She points out that the NP is not the only constituent that can undergo clefting. In this vein, [20] and [12] note that time and space adverbials can also be clefted. According to [12], the cleft pronoun it or ce is considered referential and serves as the subject of the matrix sentence. This pronoun has a semantic function. He also suggests that the clefted element constitutes the predicate, and the restrictive relative, which is discontinuously associated with the pronoun it, forms a syntactic constituent with it via the copula. Jespersen’s analysis allows him to explain why this type of relative appears after a highly determined element. [25] analyzes the constituent preceding the restrictive as an ‘extraposition’.

The use of the relative pronoun is conceived by [8] as a self-repair strategy that prevents the displacement of the NP from creating an ungrammatical effect. The use of relative pronoun before an NP is a consequence of [16] definition of clefts in French, which states that: «Les clivées sont des constructions comportant une proposition principale formé par le démonstratif ce, c’, avec le verbe être suivi d’un groupe nominal et une subordonnée introduite par un relatif comportant elle-même un verbe conjugué».

Moreover, cleft structures select any major constituent of the sentence. However, Muller’s conception implies that the presupposition contained in the cleft is not a relative pronoun that links the term in the pivot and the rest of the predication. The sequences below allow us to endorse the analysis of clefts, with demonstrates that it differs from relatives:

(2) a. nɛ́ Rosalinea yak-ɑ́ skûlu

It’s Rosaline Op go.Acc school

‘It’s Rosaline who went to school’

b. nɛ́ bêma ba-ɑ́ dɔk korona

It’s child Op catch.Acc virus corona

‘It’s the child who caught the corona virus’

c. nɛ́ mbɔktɛa Sodea hunya-ɑ́ nu-tua

It’s gently OP Sodea open.Acc door

‘It’s gently that Sodea opened the door’

The examples in (2) exhibit the nouns ‘Rosaline’, ‘bêm’ and adverb ‘mbɔktɛ’ respectively. These constituents positioned in the pivot are linked through the particle ‘a’. This particle is the element on which the action exerted by the NP on the VP is highlighted; it is the element from which the designated constituent is attached to the elements that assign it a value. In these examples (2), the designated constituents, namely ‘Rosaline, bêm and mbɔktɛ’, are C-commanded by ‘a’. As a result, the particle ‘a’ exerts a force on the designation element and the designated constituents. It is this value assigned to the morpheme ‘a’ that we call Operator (Op). In Gbaya, the cleft construction exhibits the designation element ‘nɛ́’, which identifies a constituent among many others, and the value of precision and circonscription is ensured by the operator ‘a’. Therefore, this operator is indispensable in cleft constructions, which leads us to call it Cleft Operator. Unlike Fulfulde where the clefted constituent is not linked to the operator ‘on’ ([18]). The sequences below clearly justify this relationship between the clefted constituent and its operator:

(3) a. o a nyɔ́ŋ-ɑ́ zoro o?

who Foc eat.Acc fish Q

‘Who ate the fish?’

b. nɛ́ Gbane

it’s Gbane Op eat.Acc fish

‘It’s Gbane (who ate the fish)’

The juxtaposition of the two sequences in (3) allows for the identification of the presupposition ‘nyɔ́ŋ-ɑ́ zoro’. It is perceived as old information, i.e., information anchored in the speaker’s knowledge store. This information undergoes a selectional restriction in (3d). However, [18] demonstrates that the antecedent, which represents old information, can be deleted without rendering the sequence ungrmmatical. There exists, to this regard, an agreement relation between the clefted element and its operator. We also note that in the Gbaya language, the operator ‘a’ is the marker of the cleft construction, as it appears in a position linked to the verb. Its absence in Logical Form disrupts the antecedent-cleft operator relation.

Based on this observation, we realize that Gbaya conforms to the definitions of cleft constructions as a pivot element associated with the presupposition via an operator. This is indeed what [23] notes and asserts that there exists in Gbaya in a direct relation between the focalized constituent and the informative pressuposition, conveying new information, unlike the so-called “Stress-Focus” clefts, whose emergence is not permitted. The sentences below illustrate this state of affairs:

(4)

a. C’est la fille que j’aime

b. Ce sont des enfants que j’ai enseigné

c. It is my best friend that I love

d. It is your daughter thatI saw past week

e. nɛ́ ngɔyɑ́ ɑ mi gbɛ-ɑ́

It is pig Op me kill.Acc

‘It’s the pig that I killed’

f. nɛ́ o ngoyɑ́ ɑ mi gbɛ-ɑ́

It is PL pig Op me kill.Acc

‘It’s the pigs that I killed’

The data in (4) demonstrate that the introducer of a cleft construction can variably be a verb phrase or a particle. The French example in (4a) presents the VP ‘c’est’ which introduces a constituent in the pivot of the cleft. This verb phrase agrees with the feature of the clefted element. In the case of English, in (4c-d), the verb phrase ‘it is’ selects both [-plural] and [+plural] constituents. This is also the case in Gbaya, even though ‘it is’ in English is a verb phrase as opposed the particle ‘nɛ́’ in Gbaya. These two introducers have the possibility of selecting various constituents. [1] analyzes the structure of the cleft construction and notes that there is extraposition of a constituent by clefting, allowing the selection of a subject in English. This is indeed what leads [13] to propose example (5)

(5) a. [who is sick] is me ([13])

b. It is me [who is sick]ᵢ

[7] develops an approach that differs from Akmadjian’s[1]. According to him, clefting exhibits properties of A-bar movement, and, as such, it is reliant on Wh-movement. The example in (5a) below will undergo the following derivation:

(6) It is [CP me [CP whoᵢ ø [tᵢ is sick]]]

[13] refutes Chomky’s[7] approach, where we can observe the overt movement of the Wh-element as if it were a genuine relativization. The overt movement of the clefted constituent should not involve the movement of the Wh-operator nor admit a complementizer before movement. Drawing on the split CP hypothesis, [15] conducts a study on cleft constructions, positing the clefted element in the Spec-Foc position dominating the CP. The same analysis is adapted by [13], proceeding from the idea that the left-peripheral movement of a focus consecrates a focus with its own projection.

Furthermore, [13] and [12] argue that the head of the Foc Pis borne by the verb ‘is’. This analysis does not apply to Gbaya data, which lacks a verbal predicate-based presentative. In certain languages like Mbəligi and Musgum, the cleft introducer is not a verb phrase. The same holds true for Gbaya. Rather, we realize that the cleft structure in Gbaya requires an emphatic particle that designates a constituent. This particle is independent and designates an element an element consacrates a focus. This analysis had already been proposed by [2], where he demostrates that the designation particle ‘nɛ́’ consecrates a Designation Phrase (DesignP), which is functionalcategory hosting the element identified by the lexical identificationitem item. To this end, the designation marker will occupy the Design˚ head of the Designagtion Phrase (DesignP), and since the marker ‘nɛ́’ has an emphatic value, it will host a focalized constituent called focus wihich it is co-indexed. We propose, following these statements, the following representation.

The phrase marker that we propose for the structure of the cleft in Gbaya in (7) places the cleft operator in a Force position.

The transmission of information is linked to the cleft and consecrates a focus. In rality, the Gbaya language, through its informational structure, exhibits several particles that lead to cross-linguistic through its data, which are usually subjected to transformations in order to reinforce not only the morphological material but also to readjust the properties and theories proposed by scholars. It is indeed in this logic that we were able to demonstrate that the structure of the cleft expresses the focus through an element that marks illocutory force. Following [2] and [4], we realize that the cleft introducer element ‘nɛ́’ in Gbaya designates the focalized element and consquently consecrates a Designation Phrase (DesignP). The focalized constituent is directly attached to the particle ‘a’ to form the classic cleft structure ‘nɛ…a’, which incidentally affects the hierarchical order proposed by [21], who thinks that the Force Phrase, which is here the element ‘a’, always occupies the high position in a sequence. Howeever, the Gbaya data seem to refute this claim and propose, to this effect, an adequate approach for future research.