2.2.3.

Extraposition of that clauses

(i) Extraposition of Subject that clauses
In English language, that clauses functioning as Subject are not often placed in front
position, i.e. in Subject position even if the sentence is well-formed. These clauses are
extraposed at the end of the sentence, and the Subject position is filled with the introductory
pronoun it. In these examples it has a cataphoric function; its referent appears later in the
sentence. In this case it is not semantically empty, its semantic content is represented by that
clause.
e.g. That my manager made a mistake is common knowledge.
It is common knowledge that my manager made a mistake.
That Mike moved to England surprised us all.
It surprised us all that Mike moved to England.

This process is called extraposition. In the first sentence of each pair the Subject is
expressed by that clauses. In the second sentence of each pair the Subject is expressed by the
cataphoric it which represents the ‘semantic’ Subject, the content of that clause.
Long and complex Subject clauses are especially extraposed (this movement is
sometimes called heavy NP shift) and it occurs in all types of syntactic context in edited
English:
e.g. It is hardly surprising that children should enthusiastically start their education at an
early age with the Absolute Knowledge of computer science.

An interesting case is represented by the constructions with copula-like verbs such as:
seem, appear, look. In these constructions that clauses may be interpreted as predicate
nominative:
e.g. It seems that he tried to commit suicide.
It appears that your sister is tired.

However, these that clauses do not function as predicate nominatives because the
introductory pronoun it does not have an anaphoric reference, but a cataphoric one. Both these
sentences are extraposed although the non-extraposed counterparts are ill-formed:
e.g. *That he tried to commit suicide seems.
*That your sister is tired appear.

(ii) Extraposition of Direct Object that clauses

It always occurs when the verb of the main clause has an object complement.
e.g. *The president made that he will change the prime minister clear.
The president made clear that he will change the prime minister.

Extraposition can also take place when the verb does not have any complement:
e.g. My parents consider it necessary that my brother should study medicine.
I strongly dislike it that he lies.

In the second example that clause comes immediately after the cataphoric it. This is
called ‘empty’ extraposition because the structure of the sentence does not really change.

2.2.4. Factive and non- factive constructions

That-clauses often express modality due to the fact that they contain propositions (i.e.
noun phrases) which can be treated as factual by the speakers. In some cases the speaker
presupposes that the proposition expressed by the clause is a fact; they are called factive
constructions:
e.g. It is strange that Mike didn’t show up.
I regret that you didn’t go on holiday.
That she is still here is significatnt.

However, in other cases, the proposition is treated epistemically; they are non-factive
constructions:
e.g. It is possible that she will marry soon.
I believe that he will move to America.

Analysing the above examples we can conclude that the predicate is the one which
determines whether a construction is factive or non-factive.

2.3. Wh- clauses

Wh- words function as interrogative elements as well as introductory elements of
nominal clauses. In such clauses they are both pro-forms and subordinators. Wh- clauses differ
from interrogative clauses in that the operator in the wh- clause does not move (the interrogative
clauses require a Subject-auxiliary inversion). Sometimes non-native speakers do not make the
difference and use the Subject-auxiliary inversion even in subordinate clauses, e.g. *He asked
me what is the time.
Wh- subordinators are different from other subordinators. They have referents in the
sentences, even if these referents are not specified:
e.g. I know who he killed. He killed someone.
I know what he did. Someone did something.
Wh- clauses can perform the following nominal functions: Subject, Direct Object,
Indirect Object, Subject complements, Object complements and Object of a preposition.

2.3.1. The Functions of Wh- clauses

(i) Wh- clauses as Subjects
Wh- clauses function as Subject clauses only with a limited set of verbs. They often
precede copula and copula-like verbs and communication verbs expressing a psychological
state, such as surprise, embarrass, disgust, shock, please, etc. The Direct Object clause is
always animate and the sentence expresses the reaction of the Direct Object to the fact
expressed by the Subject clause:
e.g. Who gave me the news was your friend.
What he did remains a mystery.
Whatever he said shocked all of us.
Why he decided to leave still puzzles us.

Extraposition of Subject Clauses

Subject clauses are often extraposed, the Subject position being filled by the
introductory pronoun it. In spoken language, Subject clauses are generally used at the end of
the sentences:
e.g. It isn’t known why he left.
It hasn’t been determined which house he sold.

(ii) Wh- clauses as Direct Objects

Unlike Wh-clauses functioning as Subject clauses, Wh- clauses functioning as Direct
Object clauses are triggered by a lot of verbs. Like any other subordinate clause, Direct Object
clauses have their own internal function.
e.g. I know what he is trying to do.
I saw who did it.
She doesn’t care whether I stay or leave.
Jeremy asked why you didn’t tell him the truth.

If the wh-word requires a preposition, the speaker has two choices. In spoken language
the preposition is separated from the verb and it goes to the end of the sentence. The wh-word
is placed first in the clause and the preposition is left in its normal position:
e.g. I know who the agent gave the files to.

In formal English the preposition usually precedes the wh-word which functions as
object; as a result, the preposition occupies the first position in the clause:
e.g. I know to whom the agent gave the files.

Specific and non-specific referents

Wh- words generally have a specific, but unspecified referent.
e.g. I asked her who made the translation.

In this case who refers to a specific referent, the person who made the translation.
However, the compounds with –ever have a non-specific reference; i.e. whatever, whoever,
whichever, whenever, however.
e.g. I don’t know what he will do next. specific reference
 I don’t like whatever she does. non-specific reference

Functions of wh-words within the Direct Object Clauses

Most of the verbs that trigger Direct Object clauses introduced by wh-words belong to
the same semantic categories of verbs that trigger Direct Object clauses introduced by that. The
most important semantic categories are mental verbs, sensory verbs and communication verbs.
The wh-words fulfill several grammatical functions within the subordinate clauses:
- Subject
e.g. I know who finished the task.
- Direct Object
e.g. I asked him why he went to hospital.
- Indirect Object
e.g. Do you have any idea whom this house belong to?
- adverbial modifier of place
e.g. I know where he spent his summer holiday.
- adverbial modifier of time
e.g. I noticed when he left.
- adverbial modifier of time (duration)
e.g. Do you know how long he lived in Italy?
- adverbial modifier of time (frequency)
e.g. Do you know how often he travels in Italy?
- adverbial modifier of means
e.g. I do not understand how he did it.
- adverbial modifier of manner
e.g. Did you notice how he did it?
- determiner
e.g. I bought which blouse my daughter liked.
I do not know whose car is this.
- no function
e.g. I do not know whether he is right or wrong.

Note: Whether is a special subordinator due to the fact that it communicates two possibilities
within the clause. Sometimes the possibilities are explicit in the clause, e.g. I do not know
whether She will come or she will stay at home, or they are implicit, e.g. I do not know if Sarah
has visited Romania.
Subordinator if behaves exactly in the same way. The Direct Object clauses introduced
by the conjunction if are triggered by psychological verbs or by verbs of inquiry:
e.g. I wonder if Sarah will come.
I asked if the plane would arrive on time.

(iii) Wh- clauses as Predicate Nominatives

 Wh- clauses function as predicate nominatives only when they follow a copula verb or
a copula-like verb, forming together a nominal predicate:
e.g. The problem is what Jane will say about the matter.
The question is why he left the room in such a hurry.
The idea is when the constructors will finish building the house.

(iv) Wh- clauses as Indirect Objects

While that- clauses and non-finite clauses can never function as Indirect Objects, wh-
clauses can. However, the Indirect Object clauses can be introduced only by non-specific wh-
words such as whoever, whichever and rarely whatever preceded by the preposition by. Who
can never introduce Indirect Object clauses:
e.g. I will give the money to whoever finishes the task.
* I will give the money to who finishes the task.
I will accept as my assistant whichever of my students volunteers first.
Give the medicine to whatever group needs most.

(v) Wh- clauses as Object Complement Clauses

As in Indirect Object Clauses, that- clauses and non-finite clauses can never function
as Object Complement Clauses. The Object Complement Clauses can be introduced only by
by non-specific wh-words such as whoever, whichever and rarely whatever. Nevertheless,
mention should be made that in discourses Object Complement Clauses are not very numerous:
e.g. This makeup artist can make you whoever you want to be.
Paint the room whatever color you like.
 Chapter 3

Relative Clauses

The English language has a number of post-modifying constructions, the most frequent
being the relative clause. A relative clause is a wh- clause that always follows a Noun Phrase.
The relative pro-form that introduces relative clauses, namely a wh- word or that, is co-
referential with the preceding Noun Phrase. The introductory element of the relative clause has
a grammatical function in the clause, and, at the same time, acts as a subordinator. The wh-
forms that introduce relative clauses are referred to as relative pronouns (in contrast to their
occurrence in interrogative clauses when they are traditionally referred to as interrogative
pronouns).
There are two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive, and each of them
modifies the preceding Noun Phrase but in different ways.
Note: Restrictive relative clauses are also called ‘defining’ relative clauses, and the non-
restrictive relative clauses are also referred to as ‘non-defining’ clauses.

3.1. Restrictive (defining) relative clauses

Restrictive relative clauses restrict the possible references to the preceding Noun
Phrase; this delimitation is compulsory as the hearer needs it in order to identify the referent:
e.g. Buy the house which is at the end of the street.
The person who came yesterday asked about you.
The car that you bought is too expensive.

Because the restrictive relative clauses restrict the possible referents of the Noun
Phrase, such clauses do not occur with proper nouns that already have a unique reference.
e.g. The Browns who live on the third floor are permanently abroad. (We assume that there
is another Brown family living on the ground floor)

But there are cases in which a proper name is used; nevertheless this name is not
considered to be a proper noun:
e.g. The John Doe who lives in my block is rude.

Note: John Doe is the name that refers to an identified person.

In this case John Doe is not technically a proper noun because the assumption is that
there is more than one John Doe in the block. The function of the restrictive relative clause is
to restrict the reference to one that lives in the same block with me.
The restrictive relative clauses are usually employed when the preceding Noun Phrase
can have more than one referent, but there are some exceptions that will be discussed below.
If I know that my neighbor has two sisters, I might say: The sister who is a doctor lives in
Canada, and the sister who is a professor in the U.S.A.
Relative clauses can modify Noun Phrases in any position. The clause is embedded in
the nominal structure. For example, if a clause modifies a Subject, then the relative clause
becomes part of the Subject.
e.g. The man [who is sitting near the window] is my friend.
Restrictive Relative Clause
…………………….Subject……………………

Like all other clauses, restrictive relative clauses have an internal structure, the wh-
word is in the first position independent from the syntactic function within the clause.
e.g. The man [who is sitting near the window] is my friend.
Subject Predicate Adv. Modifier of Place

Restrictive relative clauses can modify:

(i) indefinite pronouns:
e.g. I don’t know anyone who can do it.
Is there somebody who can come with me?
(ii) personal pronouns when used as indefinites:
e.g. She who did the best deserves to win.

Nevertheless, such constructions are not very common in modern English. Sometimes,
you is used with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. You who are standing over there go away.

3.1.1. Introductory elements of restrictive relative Clauses

(i) Although who and which function as relative pro-forms, that is most used in English.
Both who and which existed in Old English as interrogatives and they were not used as relative
pronouns until the Middle English period.
Who has different forms for different cases and it is used only with [+animate] Nouns.
e.g. I like the woman who lives next door.

In spite of having a standard Accusative form, whom, the Accusative form who is
largely used in spoken exchanges even by educated people. The preposition of the Accusative
takes the final position.
e.g. The man with whom I had an agreement died.
The man who I had an agreement with died.
I know the man who you had an agreement with.

In the Genitive case the form is whose:

e.g. The girl whose sister is your colleague is very beautiful.
 As stated before, who can be used only with [+animate] Noun Phrase. However, the
Genitive form whose can also be used with [-animate] Noun Phrases especially in spoken
English. They replace the construction Preposition + which:
e.g. I bought a second-hand car whose bodywork is not very good.
I bought a second-hand car the bodywork of which was not very good.

Because it is longer and complicated, the Genitive construction in the second example
is never used in spoken English. In spoken language the first construction is by far more usual:
Note: indefinite wh-words, such as whoever, whatever, wherever, etc) are never used as relative
pronouns.

(ii) That is used with both [+animate] and [-animate] Nouns:

e.g. I like the present that I received on my birthday.
The people that live next door are very old.

Note: However, The people who live next door are very old, is more often heard.

(iii) There are some other wh- words such as where, when and why that can be used as
introductory elements for restrictive relative clause in limited circumstances. Where must be
used after a Noun Phrase denoting a place, when must be used after a Noun Phrase indicating
time, and why typically follows the Noun Phrase the reason.
e.g. The place where I was born is extremely beautiful.
The time when we decided to get married was magic.
The reason why he decided to live abroad is still a mystery for all of us.

Extra-position of restrictive relative clauses

Restrictive relative clause can be extraposed in spoken discourse. These constructions
are not acceptable in written language because the modifying clause is too far from its head
noun.
e.g. Mike gave a book that he had found in his house to Jen.
? Mike gave a book to Jen that he had found in his house.

In spoken English, the natives would probably avoid the confusion and say:
e.g. Mike found a book in his house and gave it to Jen.

Generally, extraposition of restrictive relative clauses is used when the clause is long
or complex:
e.g. I am meeting a man at 6 p.m. that I first saw at my sister’s party.
I am meeting a man at 6 p.m. I first saw him at my sister’s party. (spoken English)

3.1.2. The Functions of pro-forms in restrictive relative clauses

 The pro-forms that introduce restrictive relative clauses can perform several functions
in the embedded clauses:
(i) Subject
e.g. The man who lives next door is my boss.
The book that is on the floor is my son’s.
(ii) Direct Object
e.g. I don’t like the man that they have appointed as chairman.
(iii) Indirect Object
e.g. Have you met her friends that she introduced me to?
(iv) Subject Complement
e.g. I don’t like the person that my son has become.
(v) Object Complement
e.g. The place which Mike called ‘wonderful’ was in fact dreadful.
(vi) Genitive Determiner
e.g. The family in whose house you live are my friends.
(vii) Adverb of Place
e.g. The place where I live has wonderful surroundings.

3.1.3. The Deletion of relative pro-forms

The relative pronoun can be deleted when it does not function as Subject:
e.g. The man [whom] I saw on the street was your friend.

There are some cases in which the relative pronoun and the verb to be can be deleted/
together with the verb to be:
(i) when they are followed by a prepositional phrase.
e.g. The car which is parked outside the house is not mine.
The car outside the house is not mine.
The flowers that are near the window are beautiful.
The flowers near the window are beautiful.
(ii) when the main verb in the relative clause is in the progressive aspect:
e.g. The boy who is studying in my room is my brother.
The boy studying in my room is my brother.
The books that are lying on the floor are mine.
The books lying on the floor are mine.

The relative pronoun and the verb to be can not be deleted in the following situations:
(i) when they are followed by an adjective:
e.g. The woman who is happy is my best friend.
*The woman happy is my best friend.
That person who is so cheerful is my dearest friend
*That person so cheerful is my dearest friend
 Nevertheless, if we change the positions of the noun and the adjective the deletion
is possible:
e.g. The happy woman is my best friend.
That so cheerful person is my dearest friend.

(ii) when they are followed by a noun:

e.g. That handsome man who is a doctor in the emergency unit is my father.
*The man a doctor is my father.
*The handsome man a doctor in the emergency unit is my father.

The relative pronoun can be deleted if it is followed by a new subject and verb:
e.g. This is the car that I bought.
This is the car I bought.
The person whom you see is my father.
The person you see is my father.
This is the town where I live.
This is the town I live in.
I don't know the reason why she is late.
I don't know the reason she is late.

Notes:
(i) Do not delete a relative pronoun that is followed by a verb other than to be:
e.g. The girl who likes to play tennis is my daughter.
*The man likes to play tennis is my father.

(ii) Never delete the relative pronoun whose:

e.g. The man whose car broke down had to walk to the train station.
*The man car broke down had to walk to the train station.

3.1.4. Functions of restrictive relative clauses

They are present in all discourses. Their main function is to restrict the referents of the
preceding Noun phrases. Beside this function, they can also have other functions:
(i) introduce a referent about which the speaker believes that it hasn’tbeen introduced
in discourse yet:
e.g. I argued with the man that moved next to me.

It is supposed that the hearer already knew that a man had moved next to the speaker.
The function is to simply remind the hearer what they already knew. This knowledge restricts
the referents of the Noun phrase.
 (ii) the restrictive relative clause can describe things. The Noun phrase contains an
indefinite article that encodes new information.
e.g. Mike has a car that is extremely expensive.
This means that Mike has only one car. But if we say:
e.g. Mike is a man that like expensive cars.
the restrictive relative clause characterizes the man.

3.1.5. Reduction of restrictive relative clauses to non-finite clauses

They can be reduced to infinitive clauses that are also restrictive.
e.g. My daughter needs someone to play with.
I need some coffee to drink before the interview starts.

As we have stated before, these infinitive clauses can be paraphrased with a restrictive
relative clause, but the main difference is that these paraphrases overlook the semantic
meanings of the infinitive clauses. Unlike restrictive relative clauses introduced by wh- relative
pronouns, infinitive relatives “focus on the real word function of the Noun Phrase modified”.
(Berk, 1999: 170):
e.g. The person my daughter needs is a playmate.
Coffee is for drinking.

3.1.6. Other post-modifiers with restrictive meaning

The English language also has some other constructions that do not have all the
syntactic and semantic characteristics of restrictive relative clauses, but which have the
function of restricting the possible referents of the Noun Phrases they post-modify.
e.g. The words said there were very unpleasant for all of us.
The book lying on the table is mine.
The man in that house is a murderer.
I met a lot of people from England.

In each case the structure in boldface plays the same role as a restrictive relative clause:
the words that/which were said; the book which/that was lying on the table; the man who is in
the house; the people that come from England/ that were born in England.

Some grammarians named this type of constructions “reduced relative clauses”, namely
structures in which the relative pronoun and the verb be have been omitted.
This transformation reduces the relative clause to a past particle (example 1), to an –
ing clause (example 2), or to a prepositional phrase (examples 3 and 4).
Although there are some grammarians who reject the idea that these structures derive
from restrictive relative clauses, we will further analyse them in order to better understand the
post-nominal constructions.
 Using the reduced relative clause model, a construction like the children who are
playing in the schoolyard can be reduced to the children playing in the garden and the book
that is lying on the table to the book lying on the table. In the latter example the prepositional
phrase lying on the table does not function as an adverbial modifier of place. Let us consider
the following example: The cars in the garage are being repaired. This sentence does not tell
us where the cars are being repaired, but which cars are repaired, i.e. the cars from inside the
garage, not from the yard. So, in the garage functions as post-modifier.
Nevertheless, this transformation does not work in all situations:
e.g. The woman in a red dress is my friend.
Children in good physical shape are selected for the college team.

None of these constructions can be replaced by a restrictive relative clause: *the woman
who is in the red dress is my friend; *children who are in good physical shape.
Because there are so many exceptions to this rule, the clauses and phrases discussed
here are labeled as restrictive post-nominal modifiers. They are typically past participle
clauses, present participle clauses and prepositional phrases. In rare cases they can be expressed
by lexical adjectives and adverbs:
e.g. Many girls wear yellow.
The people here are very nice.

3.2. Non-restrictive (non-defining) relative clauses

The non-restrictive relative clauses perform a function completely different from that
of the restrictive ones. They only provide additional information about the Noun Phrase they
determine and they are not embedded. In written texts they are separated by commas unlike
restrictive relative clauses.
e.g. Anthony Hopkins, who is a famous British actor, has won an Oscar.
My mother is visiting my brother, who is living in London.

Although the information that non-restrictive relative clauses provide is additional, this
does not mean that it is useless or irrelevant. Sometimes, the information can be very important,
as in the following example:
e.g. These batteries, which should be changed monthly, will keep the appliance function
properly.

Non-restrictive relative clauses are almost never introduced by that after [+human]
Noun phrases and only occasionally after [-human] Noun phrases. A sentence like His new
novel, that is a best-seller, is excellent is not usual for many speakers.
Unlike restrictive relative clauses, non-restrictive relative clauses can refer to other
structures than Noun phrases. Because the referents of these clauses are structures, not people,
the introductory element is always the pro-form which. The antecedent can be:
 (i) predicate
e.g. My daughter wants to go to Disneyland, which many kids do.

(ii) predicative adjective

e.g. I know you are furious, which you have every right to be.

(iii) the whole sentence

e.g. Today is Friday, which means I can go away for the weekend.

Non-restrictive relative clauses can be reduced to non-finite forms, especially to past

participle clauses:
e.g. Michael Jordan, considered the best player in the team, is famous all over the world.
My aunt Elisabeth, called Liz by everybody, has nine children.
Mrs. Jones, appointed president of the company, is a very stubborn person.

3.2.1. The Appositive

They are non-restrictive relative clauses rendered by Noun phrases, not clauses. They
also refer to the same entity as the Noun phrase they follow. The following examples show the
difference between non-restrictive relative clauses and the appositives:
e.g. My brother, who is a doctor, lives in London. -
non-restrictive relative clause
My brother, a doctor in London, will marry next week. - appositive

My village, which is a tight community, is fascinating.-

non-restrictive relative clause
My village, a tight community, is fascinating.-
appositive

3.2.2. Discourse Functions of non-restrictive relative clauses and appositives

Both non-restrictive relative clauses and appositives introduce unfamiliar people into
discourse by using a common Noun phrase and proper nouns followed by explanations as in
the following example:
e.g. We met a young man, a professor at Yale, who was teaching history at that time, during
our holiday in the U.S.A.

Appositives and non-restrictive relative clauses are extremely used in newspapers and
journals because newspaper articles always introduce new information about new events in
discourse:
e.g. The workhorse of this system is the light-sensitive hormone melatonin, which is
produced by the body every evening and during the night.
 Both non-restrictive relative clauses and appositives are also constantly used in contexts
in which the speaker or the writer tries to explain and define something. They are present in
textbooks, reference books and manuals.
e.g. Non-bypassed models have dedicated bypass terminals, which allow the soft starter to
continue providing protection and monitoring functions even when bypassed via
external contactor.

Both non-restrictive relative clauses and appositives also frequently occur in informal
discourse. In the following example the author uses non-restrictive relative clauses in order to
introduce new characters and, at the same time, provide new information about them.
e.g. I heard about Jack’s father, his stepfather, Thomas, who became the manager of the
best hospital in town.

3.2.3. Restrictive Appositives

There is another construction which resembles both restrictive and non-restrictive
relative clauses. They are called “restrictive appositives”. They are introduced by the relative
pronoun that preceded by an abstract noun:
e.g. The fact that he won amazed us all.
I enjoyed the idea that he would visit us.
I had the hope that he would give me my money back.

These clauses are different from normal/standard relative clauses. The introductory
element is always that, never a wh- word and this introductory element does not have any
function in the clause. If the preceding Noun phrase is part of the verbal phrase (the second and
the third examples above) the subordinator that can always be deleted from the restrictive
appositive. When the introductory element is part of the Subject (like in the first example) the
deletion can be done but the remaining sentence is problematic for many speakers:
e.g. ?The fact he won amazed us all.

Restrictive relative clauses are sometimes extraposed in casual discourse.

e.g. The idea that he will win is strange.
The idea is strange that he will win.

When the restrictive relative clauses are extraposed, no cataphoric it is required since
the preceding Noun phrase still functions as Subject.
Infinitive clauses can also function as restrictive appositives and they follow abstract
nouns:
e.g. Her desire to marry him is normal.
I had the opportunity to live abroad.
 We can paraphrase the first sentences and say Her desire, which is to marry him, is
normal, but this form is quite unusual.
Infinitive restrictive appositives can not be extraposed.

3.3. Introductory Emphatic Sentences (Cleft Sentences)

An introductory emphatic sentence (cleft sentences) is an information-packaging
construction (Huddleston and Pullum, 2007: 239) which “packs” the information in a special
way by emphasizing a particular element of the sentence. Every cleft sentence has a syntactic
counterpart which has the same meaning in most cases. These two constructions will be dealt
with in this chapter, the author analyzing the situations in which emphatic constructions rather
than their basic counterparts should be use. The cleft constructions can be divided into to major
types: it-cleft constructions and pseudo-cleft constructions.

3.3.1. IT-cleft Constructions

Generally, a construction can have more than one cleft counterparts, one for each Noun
phrase. For example, for the following non-cleft construction
e.g. James gave this book to Sarah.

there are 3 possible cleft counterparts:

e.g. It was James who gave this book to Sarah.
It was Sarah who was given this book.
It was this book which was given to Sarah.

In order to form an it-cleft construction from a syntactically more basic non-cleft

construction the sentence is divided into two different parts (Huddleston and Pullum, 2007:
251):
(i) the foregrounded, marked in bold in the above examples and
(ii) the backgrounded, underlined in the above examples
The parts of speech that can be selected for functioning as the foregrounded element
are different: the Subject, the Direct Object, the Indirect Object (in our example).
(i) the foregrounded element functions as the complement of the verb to be. The Subject
is always expressed by the empty pronoun it.
The foregrounded element is a Noun phrase and its functions are the same as those in
the corresponding non-cleft counterpart. Apart from the Subject and Objects (illustrated in our
example), it can also function as:
(i) Subject of the embedded clause:
e.g. They suggested you should leave. Non-cleft
It’s you they suggested should leave. It-Cleft
(ii) complement of a preposition:
e.g. I introduced Mike to John. Non-cleft
It was John who I introduced Mike to. It-Cleft
 (iii) adverbial modifier of manner
e.g. He cut the fabric with a knife. Non-cleft
It was with a knife that he cut the fabric. It-Cleft
(iv) adverbial modifier of time
e.g. She always travels by car. Non-cleft
It is always that she travels by car. It-Cleft
(v) adverbial modifier of purpose
e.g. I gave up smoking to feel fitter. Non-cleft
It was to feel fitter that I gave up smoking. It-Cleft

Note: The Prepositional phrase (with a knife), the adverb (always) and the non-finite clause (to
feel fitter) are all adjuncts of various kinds.
Apart from these possibilities there is one more type of relative clause which does not
modify a Noun phrase. In the example He cut the fabric with a knife, that he cut the fabric
does not modify the noun knife:
e.g. *This is [the knife that he cut the fabric].
In order to form a correct sentence we have to retain the preposition with:
e.g. This is [the knife he cut the fabric with].

(ii) the backgrounded element is expressed as a relative clause introduced by the relative
pronoun who. The relative clause does not depend on James. James who gave this book to
Sarah does not form a syntactic constituent. In normal relative clauses the Noun phrase that
triggers it forms a syntactic constituent along with the relative clause:
e.g. It was James [who gave this book to Sarah].
They were [my friends who advised me not to do it].

In some cases there is some ambiguity between it-cleft sentences and relative clauses.
A sentence like It was Dior’s collection that I liked best can be analysed in two ways;
- as an it-cleft sentence: the pronoun it is an empty pronoun and it may be used to answer
the question: What did I like best?;
- as a non-cleft sentence, it is a personal pronoun referring to Dior’s collection. Dior’s
collection that I liked best forms a constituent.
The backgrounded element presents the information as a presupposition, the content of
this information is considered correct or taken for granted.
Generally, presupposition is not affected when we negate the content of the sentence
and this is the main difference between cleft sentences and their non-cleft counterparts:
e.g. I didn’t make a birthday cake for John. Non-cleft
It wasn’t for John that I made a birthday cake. It-cleft
 The non-cleft sentence simply denies that I made a cake for John, it does not state that
I made a cake for someone else. The if-cleft has a different content: the presupposition that I
made a cake is valid, but it denies that I made it for John.
In this case the information is old, having been introduced earlier in the discourse, but
there are some cases in which the presupposition introduces new information:
e.g. Darwin has been considered to be a genius. It was he who wrote the famous work “The
Origin of Species” which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.

3.3.2. Pseudo-cleft Constructions

They are similar to it-cleft sentences, being divided into foregrounded and
backgrounded elements. The backgrounded element represent the presupposed information.
The difference between these two types of cleft sentences is that the backgrounded element is
placed in a fused relative construction:
e.g. What we need is love. Non-cleft
What we need is love. Pseudo-cleft
He said he would move. Non-cleft
What he said is that he would move. Pseudo-cleft
I’ll travel to Spain. Non-cleft
What I will do is travel to Spain. Pseudo-cleft

The backgrounded element is in bold, and the foregrounded element is underlined. The
backgrounded material forms a fused relative construction. In the first pair of examples, the
non-cleft sentence asserts that we need something. Like in the above example, the
presupposition is still valid in the negative counterpart:
e.g. What we need is not love, it’s sympathy.

The foregrounded elements overlap only partially in it-cleft and pseudo-cleft

constructions. The main difference is that pseudo-cleft sentences can have subordinate clauses
as foregrounded elements whereas the it-cleft constructions can not. In the examples discussed
earlier we notice that only the first one can form an it-cleft counterpart, the other two can not:
e.g. It is love that we need.
*It is that he would move that he said.
*It is travel to Spain that I will do.

Note: Who is not normally used in fused relative clauses in everyday discourse; this is why the
pseudo-cleft sentences do not allow Noun phrases as foregrounded elements. We can not say:
*Who introduced Mike to John was me; we use instead an it-cleft construction: The one who
introduced Mike to John was me.
A special type of pseudo-cleft sentences is the specifying be construction in which a
Subject or a complement can be reversed:
e.g. Love is what we need.
Note: The pseudo-cleft constructions are less systematically related to their non-cleft
counterparts than the it-cleft constructions. There are cases of pseudo-cleft constructions
without non-cleft counterparts:
e.g. What I listened to was a symphony. Pseudo-cleft
*I listened to