Grammatical constructions with extraposed that-clause subjects in academic research papers
The influence of discipline on their frequency
Roč.16,č.1(2026)
This study examines the distribution of three formally and functionally related constructions in a sample of 210 academic research articles across the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences: it-clefts, non‑specificational copular clauses with extraposition of subject and passive constructions followed by an extraposed that-clause subject. Since all three constructions can present information as non‑negotiable by embedding it in the that-clause, it is hypothesized that their highest frequencies will occur in the humanities, where persuasive discourse plays a comparatively prominent role, while more empirical disciplines may employ them with a lower frequency.
The findings support this expectation for it-clefts, which occur most frequently in the humanities and are especially common in the least empirical humanities disciplines (literary studies, philosophy, and art and music). Non‑specificational copular clauses show a similar cross‑domain distribution; yet no clear variation pattern within the humanities is observed. In contrast, passive constructions with extraposed subjects in the form of a that-clause exhibit the opposite pattern, with the highest frequency in the natural sciences. The results of the analysis confirm the hypothesis that constructions with extraposed subject that-clauses are suitable for persuasive discourse; however, it is also shown that despite formal similarities, the passive construction is used to avoid the usage of personal pronouns and animate subjects in general rather than backgrounding a piece of information by means of placing it in the that-clause.
academic English; disciplinary variation; persuasive discourse; extraposition; it-clefts
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/AntConc
Banks, D. (1995). There is a cleft in your sentence: Less common clause structures in scientific writing. ASp, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.3702
Bennett, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre and style. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2021). Grammar of spoken and written English (2nd ed.). John Benjamins.
Bourgoin, C. (2022). Towards a new typology of the referential information structure of specificational it‑clefts. Text & Talk, 42(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0081
Callies, M. (2009). Information highlighting in advanced learner English. John Benjamins.
Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin Books.
Collins, P. (1991). Cleft and pseudo‑cleft constructions in English. Routledge.
De Cesare, A., & Gerrasino, D. (2015). On the status of exhaustiveness in cleft sentences: A data‑based and cross‑linguistic study of English also‑/only‑clefts and Italian anche‑/solo‑clefts. Folia Linguistica, 49(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0001
Declerck, R. (1983). Predicational clefts. Lingua, 61(4), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(83)90023-2
Declerck, R. (1984). The pragmatics of it‑clefts and wh‑clefts. Lingua, 64(4), 251–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(84)90065-2
Delin, J. (1992). Properties of it‑cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.289
Dontcheva‑Navratilova, O., Adam, M., Povolná, R., & Vogel, R. (2020). Persuasion in specialised discourses. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dušková, L. (2015). From syntax to text: The Janus face of functional sentence perspective. Karolinum Press.
Firbas, J. (1967). It was yesterday that…. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, A (Řada jazykovědná), 16(A15), 141–146.
Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. John Benjamins.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002
Halvorsen, P. K. (1978). The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions. Texas Linguistic Forum, 2. Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.
Hasselgård, H. (2004). Adverbials in it‑cleft constructions. Language and Computers, 49, 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333710_012
Hasselgård, H. (2014). It‑clefts in English L1 and L2 academic writing: The case of Norwegian learners. In K. Davidse et al. (Eds.), Corpus interrogation and grammatical patterns (pp. 295–319). John Benjamins.
Higgins, F. R. (1979). The pseudo‑cleft construction in English. Garland Publishing.
Hilpert, M. (2015). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1999). Pattern grammar: A corpus‑driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2019). Academic discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary persuasion in changing times. Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
Johansson, M. (2002). Clefts in English and Swedish: A contrastive study of it‑clefts and wh‑clefts in original texts and translations (Doctoral dissertation, Lund University).
Lacassain, C. (2023). Are it‑clefts really “cleft” constructions? Études Anglaises, 76(3), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.3917/e.etan.763.0323
Patten, A. (2012). The English it‑cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Walter de Gruyter.
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of wh‑clefts and it‑clefts in discourse. Language, 54(4), 883–906. https://doi.org/10.2307/413238
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Rochemont, M. (1986). Focus in generative grammar. John Benjamins.
Soames, S. (1989). Presupposition. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 4, pp. 553–616). D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Washburn, M. B., Kaiser, E., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2019). The English it‑cleft: No need to get exhausted. In K. von Heusinger, M. Zimmermann, & E. Onea (Eds.), Questions in discourse: Volume 1. Semantics (pp. 198–236). Brill.
Wu, J., & Pan, F. (2024). Stance construction via that-clauses in telecommunications research articles: A comparison of L1 and L2 expert writers. Text & Talk. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0170
Zhang, G. (2015). It is suggested that… or it is better to…? Forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.004
Zimmermann, M., & Onea, E. (2011). Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua, 121(11), 1651–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002
Copyright © 2026 Kryštof Beták