grammatical structure help

Question

can anybody help me identify the different grammatical structures of this sentence?It was the prize that was the problemthanks..

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

Welcome Noobie!

There are two clauses. The first is the main clause. The second is a dependent (relative) clause.
[It was the prize] [that was the problem.]

Grammarnoobie · Answer

thanks. just one more thing. there exist two clauses because there are two pairs of subject-verb, right?

Anonymous · Answer

thank you

CalifJim · Answer

grammarnoobieIt was the prize that was the problem.

This is a cleft sentence derived from The prize was the problem and highlighting the prize.

Since there is no reference to "the prize that was the problem" (as opposed to some other prize), this is not considered a relative clause.

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimSince there is no reference to "the prize that was the problem" (as opposed to some other prize), this is not considered a relative clause.

It is by Huddleston and Pullum, at least:

…
b. It was Sue who introduced Jim to Pat.
…

Syntactic structure of the it-cleft
The foregrounded element functions as complement to be. The subject is invariably it, a meaningless dummy pronoun. The backgrounded element is expressed as a relative clause, with the foregrounded element as antecedent for the relativised element, here who. So the structure of B is as follows:

The relative clause is of the integrated type, but it’s not a dependent of Sue: the words Sue who introduced Jim to Pat do not form a syntactic constituent. In an ordinary integrated relative like They were [people who needed help], the bracketed sequence people who needed help _IS a constituent, an NP. This means there may be ambiguity between it-clefts and ordinary integrated relatives:

[36] It was the song that impressed them.

As an it-cleft, this means The song impressed them, and the it is a dummy. It might be used to answer the question What impressed the record company? As a non-cleft, you can imagine [36] as an answer to Why did they choose that song to release as a single? Here it is an ordinary pronoun referring to the song, and the song that impressed them does form a constituent.

(A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar)

If it’s not a relative clause, then what is it?

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara GusIf it’s not a relative clause, then what is it?

I don't think Huddleston and Pullum have invented a term for it yet, which is surprising since they make such a show of describing how it's not like "an ordinary integrated relative", but then I don't even know what an "integrated" relative is, nor what a "segregated" relative might be, if there is such a thing. It seems there must be. Why else say "integrated"?

I'm perfectly satisfied with "required component of a cleft structure".

CJ

AlpheccaStars · Answer

grammarnoobie thanks. just one more thing. there exist two clauses because there are two pairs of subject-verb, right?

Noobie; Please use your shift-key when you post. We do.

Yes, there are two clauses because there are two subject/verb combinations. The dispute is what to call the second one. And you see that grammarians have different opinions.

These are finite-verb clauses, or "full" clauses, as opposed to "reduced" clauses which have a non-finite verb.

CalifJim · Answer

AlpheccaStarsThe dispute is what to call the second one.

Indeed. It amazes me that modern grammarians have multiplied the terms tenfold in the last 20 years with all their hair-splitting, and they still want to share the term "relative clause" across two completely different grammatical phenomena. (But maybe I am too easily amazed.)

(Now I suppose it is I who am splitting hairs, where I who am splitting hairs (as opposed to a different I) is not a constituent.

)

CJ

AlpheccaStars · Answer

CalifJim(Now I suppose it is I who am splitting hairs, where I who am splitting hairs (as opposed to a different I) is not a constituent. )CJ

grammatical structure help

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions