1

It was in 1945 that World World 2 ended.

I think that is a complementizer, but I'm not sure of the nature of this complement. By nature I mean the part of speech of the complement clause and to what is it a complement.

It's neither the subject nor the object of this sentence. (compare I think that World War 2 ended in 1945.)

It not the complement of a predicate adjective either. (compare I am sure that World War 2 ended in 1945.)

Maybe it's the complement to the prepositional/adverbial phrase in 1945? The reason I say this is because the that-clause couldn't just complement the was if the in 1945 was removed.

Joe
  • 31
  • Yes, that is a complementizer here. It's part of this It-Cleft transform of World War II ended in 1945. – John Lawler Dec 01 '20 at 17:55
  • @JohnLawler But this sentence is quite different from Having time to think makes me depressed. or You are mistaken. where the NP is extracted and followed by a that relative clause (adjectival in nature). If we were to do that with my sentence, we'd get It was WW II that ended in 1945. instead of It was in 1945 that WW II ended. The in 1945 is throwing me off because it's clearly abverbial in nature instead of adjectival. Anyways going back to my question: is the POS of the complement clause a noun clause? And to what is it a complement of? – Joe Dec 01 '20 at 18:32
  • As JL say, it's an it-cleft, but the expression that World World 2 ended is a relative clause, not a complement, so "that" is analysed as a subordinating conjunction (aka subordinator) introducing the relative clause that WW2 ended. The basic non-cleft version is simply WW2 ended in 1945. – BillJ Dec 01 '20 at 18:32
  • @BillJ If that is the indeed the case, what is antecedent of the relative clause that World War 2 ended? Because it should be modifying a noun no? – Joe Dec 01 '20 at 18:37
  • The foregrounded element (the antecedent) may be an NP, a PP, an AdvP or an AdjP. In your example, it's the PP "in 1945". Btw, in a cleft construction, the relative clause is not a modifier of the forgrounded element. – BillJ Dec 01 '20 at 18:45
  • In other words, the relative clause does not form a constituent with its antecedent. – BillJ Dec 01 '20 at 18:51
  • @BillJ The relative clause side of it does kind of show when you replace that with when as in It was in 1945 when WW2 ended. If it doesn't modify the antecedent, what is its purpose (and therefore what is its nature)? Is it just to introduce a subordinate clause and that's it? – Joe Dec 01 '20 at 18:55
  • The general idea is that it -clefts have it as the subject of the matrix clause, with the relative clause appearing in extranuclear position at the end. In that relatives, that introduces the relative clause. In WH relatives, the relative clause is introduced by a relative pronoun like which or who. – BillJ Dec 01 '20 at 19:18
  • @BillJ So in most occurrences of that-relative clause, it references an antecedent and modifies it, but in a cleft-construction (or is it cleft-transformation?) the that references an antecedent but doesn't modify it? – Joe Dec 01 '20 at 19:38
  • @Joe: Where did those sentences come from, and why are they relevant to what I said or what you asked? Those are completely different constructions. And, as for terminology, don't take BillJ too literally. He and I disagree on terminology. I often call things names he disapproves of; he'll be glad to tell you which. – John Lawler Dec 01 '20 at 20:10
  • @JohnLawler The two sentences are from the link you gave above and from a hyperlink within that link. They're relevant because in those links you explain "the Clefting process extracts the NP which becomes the predicate of a dummy It, and the rest becomes a relative clause modifying the NP", which are adjectival in nature. But not in my case above...? – Joe Dec 01 '20 at 20:29
  • There are several different types of clefts. It-Clefts are only one; there are also Wh-Clefts (It was the green car that he took vs What he took was the green car, both from He took the green car). This is the wrong place to discuss clefting, anyway. – John Lawler Dec 01 '20 at 22:35
  • @JohnLawler Well going back to the original Q, does that mean that is a complementizer of a noun clause World World 2 ended in 1945? And to what is it a complement of? You told me before that in I am sure that World War 2 ended in 1945. the that-clause is "a complement to the predicative adjective sure". Here I am asking the same question. – Joe Dec 02 '20 at 05:41
  • You're still missing the point: In I am sure that World War 2 ended in 1945 the that clause is a declarative content clause functioning as complement of sure, with that as subordinator (or 'complementizer' for some). But your original example is an it-cleft construction, where that WW2 ended in 1945 is a relative clause, again introduced by the subordinator (not complementizer) that. Is that clear now? – BillJ Dec 02 '20 at 07:53
  • @BillJ It's clear, except for the part where you claim the relative clause in the original example (that WW2 ended in 1945) differs from the 'typical' relative clause in that it doesn't modify the antecedent. Original example: It was in 1945 that WW2 ended. Now compare it with a sentence like 1945 was the year that WW2 ended. How does one argue that in the former sentence that WW2 ended does NOT modify the antecedent, yet it does in the latter sentence? – Joe Dec 02 '20 at 11:49

0 Answers0