Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T07:56:02.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Wh-Clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ellen F. Prince
Ellen F. Prince*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

WH-clefts and it-clefts have long been claimed to be interchangeable. However, an examination of naturally-occurring discourse demonstrates that this claim is incorrect. The presupposed part (WH-clause) of a WH-cleft represents information that the speaker can assume the hearer is thinking about. In one variety of it-cleft, the presupposed part (that/WH-clause) represents information which the speaker assumes the hearer knows or can deduce, but is not presumably thinking about. In another variety of it-cleft, the presupposed part represents information which the speaker takes to be a known fact, though definitely NOT known to the hearer.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 1978, pp. 883 - 906
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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
Akmajian, Adrian, and Heny, Frank. 1975. An introduction to the principles of transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian, and Wasow, Thomas. 1975. The constituent structure of VP and aux and the position of the verb be. Linguistic Analysis 1.205–46.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1951. The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1977. Th-clefts. Paper read at the University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Colloquium, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972a. A look at equations and cleft sentences. Studies for Einar Haugen, ed. by Firchow, E., 96–114. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972b. That's that. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1974. Language and consciousness. Lg. 50.111–33.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Challenge. Journal of the World-Wide Union of Ethiopian students. Vol. X, No. 1, February 1970.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Studies in general and oriental linguistics presented to Shiro Hattori, ed. by Jakobson, R. & Kawamoto, S., 52–91. Tokyo: TEC. [Reprinted in his Studies on semantics in generative grammar, 62-119. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In his Studies on semantics in generative grammar, 120–202. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Haviland, Susan E. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contrast. Discourse production and comprehension, ed. by Freedle, Roy, 1–40. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Columns. Univ. of Pennsylvania magazine. March 1977.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1.267–80.Google Scholar
Fought, John G. 1976. Time structuring in Chorti (Mayan) narratives. Mayan linguistics I, ed. by McClaran, Marlys, 228–42. Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, UCLA.Google Scholar
Giglioli, Paolo (ed.) 1972. Language and social context. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Lg. 52.382–97.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Lg. 53.343–59.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. JL 3.199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1974. On the non-cyclic nature of wh-clefting. Proceedings of the 10th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 221–33.Google Scholar
Haviland, Susan E., and Clark, Herbert. 1974. What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. JVLVB 13.512–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, F. R. 1971. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. LI 4.465–97.Google Scholar
Hornby, Peter A. 1974. Surface structure and presupposition. JVLVB 13.530–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JE. Jewish exponent (Philadelphia weekly newspaper).Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1971. Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. by Fillmore, Charles & Langendoen, D. T., 45–54. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward, and Bellugi-Klima, Ursula. 1969. Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. Modern studies in English, ed. by Reibel, D. & Schane, S., 448–66. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Conditions for verb phrase deletion. FL 13.161–75.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Two topics on discourse principles. To appear in Bulletin of the ICU Summer Institute in Linguistics, 2.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. LA 2.1–22.Google Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn. 1976. Resources for saying in service encounters. U. of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
PB. Philadelphia/Sunday bulletin (daily newspaper).Google Scholar
PG. Pennsylvania Gazette (U. of Penn. alumni magazine). February 1977.Google Scholar
PI. Philadelphia/Sunday inquirer (daily newspaper).Google Scholar
Pinkham, Jessie, and Hankamer, Jorge. 1975. Deep and shallow clefts. Proceedings of the 11th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 429–50.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1976. The syntax and semantics of NEG-raising, with evidence from French. Lg. 52.404–26.Google Scholar
PT. The presidential transcripts. Prepared by the Washington Post. New York: Dell, 1974.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, and Greenbaum, Sidney. 1973. A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Shirer, William L. 1960. The rise and fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1971. Presupposition and the notion of normal stress. Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 242–53.Google Scholar
Terkel, Studs. 1974. Working. New York: Pantheon. [Reprinted, New York: Avon, 1975.]Google Scholar
Today. Magazine of the Sunday inquirer.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin. 1938. Some verbal categories of Hopi. Lg. 14.275–86. [Reprinted in his Language, thought, and reality, 112-24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1956.]Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin. 1945. Grammatical categories. Lg. 21.1–11. [Reprinted in his Language, thought, and reality, 87-101.]Google Scholar