Abstract
ABSTRACTIt has often been claimed that it-cleft complements differ syntactically from restrictive relative clauses. Alleged differences in the distribution and relative frequency of wh-forms in the two clause types are generally offered to support this view, but such claims have not been empirically verified. In this study, we examine synchronic and diachronic data for clefts and relative clauses and show that the major claims are unsupported. The diachronic data further show that cleft complements and restrictive relative clauses have changed together over time and at the same rate. On the constant rate hypothesis, the evidence supports the position that the two clause types are not syntactically distinct.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
