Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-26T00:42:58.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where do Cleft Sentences Come From?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Jeanette K. Gundel
Jeanette K. Gundel*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most analyses of cleft sentences have assumed that the subject it of these constructions is semantically empty. It is argued here, however, that cleft sentences are reduced forms of right-dislocated pseudo-clefts, where it is a pronominal reference to the topic which appears at the end of the sentence. The fact that this NP is always pronominalized with it is shown to follow from a more general principle which governs pronominalization in ‘identifying’ sentences.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 543 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 by 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

Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. LI 1. 149–68.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1969. Anti-pronominalization. Austin: University of Texas (dittoed).Google Scholar
Bever, T. G., and Langendoen, D. T. 1971. A dynamic model of the evolution of language. LI 2. 433–64.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972a. A look at equations and cleft sentences. Studies for Einar Haugen, ed. by Firchow, E. S. et al., 96–114. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110879131-010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972b. That's that. (Janua linguarum, series minor, 155.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75. 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1974. The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Austin: University of Texas dissertation. [Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1976. Stress, pronominalization and the given-new distinction. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Meeting, Northeast Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1974. On the non-cyclic nature of wh-clefting. Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 221–32.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Keenan, Elinor O., and Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1976. Foregrounding reference: a reconsideration of left dislocation in discourse. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistic Society, 240–57.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1970. Opacity, coreference and pronouns. Synthese 21. 359–85.10.1007/BF00484805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkham, Jessie, and Hankamer, Jorge. 1975. Deep and shallow clefts. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 429–50.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Lg. 49. 19–46.Google Scholar
Stahlke, Herbert F. W. 1976. Which that. Lg. 52. 584–610.Google Scholar
Wirth, Jessica. 1974. The derivation of cleft sentences in English. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, New York.Google Scholar