The "that-clause" in this sentence is confusing me

Question

First, let me thank everyone here for all of the help. You guys have been great.

So, this sentence: "It was the student's question that stumped me." What's going on here? Is the "that-clause" a complement, a "complement clause"? The sentence wouldn't make much sense or at least it would not express the same idea without it: "It was the student's question."

I can't imagine that it is a relative clause, and I know that there is some debate as to whether or not that is even a relative pronoun at all (although I don't understand the debate because there seems to be a gap in all relative clauses as far as I am concerned or maybe this whole gap thing hasn't been explained to me well enough).

I know that "it" is a sort of dummy subject in the sentence and the sentence can be rewritten, maybe as something like: "The student's question was what stumped me" where, if I'm not mistaken, "what stumped me" would be a sort of embedded interrogative clause -- I think?

Anyway, any input would be appreciated. Thanks again, everyone!

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

It is a cleft sentence.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/word-order-and-focus/cleft-sentences-it-was-in-june-we-got-married

CalifJim · Answer

anonymousIs the "that-clause" a complement

No. In a cleft sentence the that-clause is considered a relative clause.

Personally, I am convinced that it is some other kind of thing, but all the experts say it's a relative clause, and they hedge that by saying it's a certain kind of relative clause, but I don't remember the terminology. I just go with the flow and say it's a relative clause. (If you're good at searching, you might try finding the thread on this forum that discusses this.)

anonymousI know that there is some debate as to whether or not that is even a relative pronoun at all (although I don't understand the debate because there seems to be a gap in all relative clauses as far as I am concerned or maybe this whole gap thing hasn't been explained to me well enough).

You can join the club on this one. I don't get it either, and I suspect a very great many others don't either. As I recall, examples from other languages are sometimes appealed to in order to prove the point. I guess in Dutch and/or in some other languages they say the man that who wrote the book (in their words, of course). So 'that' has one function, and 'who' has another. (I know.)

anonymous"The student's question was what stumped me" where, if I'm not mistaken, "what stumped me" would be a sort of embedded interrogative clause -- I think?

No. It's a fused relative construction.

what stumped me ~ that which stumped me

"fused" because the antecedent (that) and the relative word (which) are fused into the word what.

that which stumped me can also be rendered as the thing that stumped me.

It is often difficult to disentangle fused relative constructions from embedded interrogatives.

CJ

The "that-clause" in this sentence is confusing me

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions