Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-p5w8z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T18:03:39.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Referential Status of Clefts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Nancy Hedberg
Nancy Hedberg*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
*
Linguistics Dept. Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Canada [hedberg@sfu.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article has two main parts. In the first, the subject pronoun in a cleft sentence together with the cleft clause is shown to function pragmatically as a discontinuous definite description. Applying the givenness hierarchy (Gundel et al. 1993) makes it possible to explain the distribution of this-clefts and that-clefts in discourse, and predicts the more frequent occurrence of it-clefts. Clefts also semantically share existential and exhaustiveness conditions with definite descriptions. The second part presents a new syntactic analysis of clefts, which treats the cleft clause as an extraposed complement of the cleft subject pronoun, adjoined to the clefted constituent.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 76 , Issue 4-1 , December 2000 , pp. 891 - 920
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 149–68.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay D., and Levinson, Stephen C. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, and Peters, Stanley. 1968. Pseudo-cleft sentences. Austin, TX, University of Texas, ms.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1977. Th-clefts. Pennsylvania Review of Linguistics 2. 57–69.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1978. It-clefts and th-clefts. Paper presented at the summer meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1991. The historical development of the it-cleft. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. A look at equations and cleft sentences. Studies for Einar Haugen, ed. by Firchow, Evelyn, 96–114. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1973. Ambient it is meaningful too. Journal of Linguistics. 9. 261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1984. Problems in form and function. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1990. Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn-Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A., 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Haviland, Susan E. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. Discourse processes: Advances in research and theory, vol. 1: Discourse production and comprehension, ed. by Freedle, Roy, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. 1931. Syntax. Boston: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
DeClerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P. 1982. Topics in the syntax and semantics of English cleft sentences. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Delin, Judy L. 1989. Cleft constructions in discourse. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Faraci, R. 1971. On the deep question of pseudoclefts. English Linguistics 6. 48–85.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W., and Fowler, F. G. 1919. The king's English. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, Judith, and Gundel, Jeanette. 1987. Topic-prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning 37. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53. 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expression in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian. 1978. The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions. Texas Linguistics Forum, 11. Austin: University of Texas Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1974. On the non-cyclic nature of wh-clefting. Chicago Linguistics Society 10. 221–33.Google Scholar
Harries, Helga. 1972. Cleft sentences, questions, and presupposition sharing. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota dissertation.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1991. On (in)definite articles. Journal of Linguistics 27. 405–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota dissertation.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie A. 1988. The syntax of copular structures. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1991. Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland Press, 1986.]Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. North Eastern Linguistic Society 14. 108–31.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 1974. Cleft reduction. Actes du colloque franco-allemand de grammaire transformationnelle, vol. 1. 182–91. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A modern English grammar 3. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1932. A handbook of present-day English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo, and Wongkhomthong, P. 1981. Characterizational and identificational sentences in Thai. Studies in Language 5. 65–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 609–65.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 1999. (Pseudo-)clefts: A case study on discourse related functional categories. Paper presented at the Workshop on the discourse function(s) of cleft sentences, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1985. Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. North Eastern Linguistic Society 16. 354–66.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. GRASS 8, ed. by Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 115–43. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pinkham, Jessica, and Hankamer, Jorge. 1975. Deep and shallow clefts. Chicago Linguistic Society 11. 429–50.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1966. On so-called pronouns in English. Nineteenth monograph on language and linguistics, ed. by Dinneen, F., 201–24. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1916. A grammar of late modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54. 883–906.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, Rachel. 1985. Getting computers to talk like you and me: Discourse context, focus and semantics (an ATM model). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael, and Culicover, Peter W. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 271–97. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1972. Act. Semantics of natural language, ed. by Davidson, D. and Harmon, G., 70–126. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14. 479–93.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth J. 1985. Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49. 19–46.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and philosophy, ed. by Munitz, M. and Unger, P., 197–214. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring. Mind 61. 320–44.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981a. Compositionality in focus. Folia Linguistica Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 15. 141–63.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. Focusing properties, or the trap of first order. Theoretical Linguistics 10. 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–38.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 423–46.Google Scholar
Wirth, Jessica R. 1978. The derivation of cleft sentences in English. Glossa 12. 58–81.Google Scholar