Explanation
A cleft sentence distributes the content of a simpler clause across a copular construction containing a focused expression and a following relative-like clause: “It was Mira who found the key.” The focus identifies one alternative while the relative presents the background as largely given. The construction can therefore correct, contrast, or make an answer structure explicit. Prosody, context, and language-specific form determine which presuppositions actually arise. The conceptual movement reconstructs the unclefted sentence, identifies focus and alternatives, and examines how the division changes informational value.
Movement of thought
1. The cleft is segmented into copula, focused expression, and relative-like background. 2. An unclefted comparison reconstructs the underlying propositional content. 3. Context and prosody determine the relevant alternative set and focus contrast. 4. Negation and questions test which background content persists as presupposed. 5. The analysis specifies whether identification, correction, or dramatic highlighting dominates.
Scientific use case
Syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and conversation analysis study clefts through focus projection, presupposition, and prosody. Corpus research shows how they operate in correction, narrative, and institutional discourse.
Example
After someone suggests that Leo found the key, a correction states, “It was Mira who found it.” The cleft backgrounds the finding and contrastively resets the identity of the finder.
Counterexample
Not every copular clause containing a relative is a cleft. If there is no focused identification among alternatives and the relative merely modifies a noun, the structure is an ordinary copular or nominal construction.
Distinction
Distinguish clefts from pseudoclefts, ordinary relative clauses, copular clauses, and prosodic focus alone. A cleft combines a dedicated split structure with identifying focus and relative-like background.
Effect on thought and perception
Clefts make the division between background and highlighted answer visible. They direct attention precisely, exclude alternatives, and stage correction more strongly than an unclefted clause.
Resonance
A sentence divides so that one element can shine more brightly. The familiar event frame remains while the focus enters it as a new contrastive answer.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Cleft sentence“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-133-046. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-133-046The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Jespersen criticises the assumption that the main grammatical clause always contains the principal idea. His comparisons show that closely related content can be distributed across clauses and expressed with different emphases. This gives historical background for cleft sentence, but the inspected passage does not define that construction or establish its complete history. The Atlas can ask which constituent receives focus and which material is treated as already available, keeping that inquiry separate from a superficial count of clauses. Direct cleft-specific sources must distinguish an it-cleft from ordinary copular predication and other focus constructions. Jespersen’s contribution is the earlier warning that grammatical rank and communicative importance do not coincide. The English technical label and the construction’s language-specific development remain explicit research tasks.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Grammatical rank and communicative weight need not coincide; that alone does not establish a cleft construction.
References for the historical section
- Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, work first published 1924; inspected later printing with November 1934 afterword, exact printing year unresolved · The Philosophy of Grammar VII, pp. 103–106: clause function versus principal idea
Selected witness, not a complete genealogy or first English attestation. Contemporary Atlas comparisons are editorial interpretations. Later-printing OCR with a November 1934 afterword; exact printing date remains unresolved. Historical usage judgments are attributed, not imposed as current rules.