The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses

1990 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fabb
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Syntactic Relation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship

A nonrestrictive relative clause (henceforth NRR) is shown in (I) and a restrictive relative clause (henceforth RR) in (2).(1) The swans, which are white, are in that part of the lake.(2) The swans which are white are in that part of the lake.Example (1) implies that all the swans under discussion are white. Example (2) implies that the white swans are being distinguished from some other not white swans which are also under discussion. There are many superficial differences between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses; in this paper I show that there is no need for construction-specific stipulations which distinguish between them. The differences arise from the fact that the RR is a modifier, while the NRR is not, and in fact has no syntactic relation to its host/antecedent. Co-indexing (involving a referential index) between the relative clause and its antecedent is central to this account. I examine the requirement that a relative pronoun must have an antecedent, which in the case of a NRR is the sole manifestation of the relationship between the relative clause and its host), and suggest that this holds at a level of discourse structure.

Headless Relative Clauses in Chuj

2021 ◽  
pp. 327-361
Author(s):  
Justin Royer
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
The Difference

This chapter explores various types of headless relative clause constructions in Chuj, a Mayan language spoken in Huehuetenango, Guatemala, and Chiapas, Mexico by 45,000 to 70,000 speakers. The main focus is free relative clauses, of which Chuj features three kinds: maximal free relative clauses, existential free relative clauses, and free-choice free relative clauses. Following earlier work on other languages, maximal free relative clauses and existential free relative clauses are argued to be structurally identical at their core; the difference in their interpretations is a consequence of a difference in the elements that each kind combines with. Chuj is also shown to feature a rich inventory of other types of headless relative clauses. These include headless relative clauses introduced by both a wh-word and a determiner [+WH, +DET], those introduced only by a determiner [−WH, +DET], and those that are formed with neither a wh-word nor a determiner [−WH, −DET].

The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment

2002 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-896 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Desmet ◽  
Marc Brysbaert ◽  
Constantijn De Baecke
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Sentence Production ◽  
Syntactic Ambiguity ◽  
Attachment Preference ◽  
Attachment Sites ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Relative Clause Attachment

We examined the production of relative clauses in sentences with a complex noun phrase containing two possible attachment sites for the relative clause (e.g., “Someone shot the servant of the actress who was on the balcony.”). On the basis of two corpus analyses and two sentence continuation tasks, we conclude that much research about this specific syntactic ambiguity has used complex noun phrases that are quite uncommon. These noun phrases involve the relationship between two humans and, at least in Dutch, induce a different attachment preference from noun phrases referring to non-human entities. We provide evidence that the use of this type of complex noun phrase may have distorted the conclusions about the processes underlying relative clause attachment. In addition, it is shown that, notwithstanding some notable differences between sentence production in the continuation task and in coherent text writing, there seems to be a remarkable correspondence between the attachment patterns obtained with both modes of production.

Recovery of information in Relative Clauses: evidence from Greek and Hebrew

1980 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Formation Process ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Modern Greek ◽  
Movement Strategy

Modern Greek has a Relative Clause Formation process by which the target of Relativization is deleted under identity with the head of the Relative Clause – these Relative Clauses are introduced by the invariant complementizer particle pu, which also introduces factive complements. (Greek also has a movement strategy for Relative Clauses, with an inflected Relative pronoun, but the details of this process are irrelevant here.) Examples of the deletion strategy are given below in (i):

The origin and use of a relative clause construction that targets objects in Orungu (Bantu, Gabon)

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 615-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark L. O. Van de Velde ◽  
Odette Ambouroue
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Thematic Role ◽  
Rare Type ◽  
Complementary Distribution ◽  
Bantu Language ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Syntactic Relation

Abstract This paper provides an analysis of two relative clause constructions in the Gabonese Bantu language Orungu that are in complementary distribution. The choice between them is determined by the target of relativisation in a typologically interesting way, in that it involves the combination of the criteria of the syntactic relation, thematic role and referential properties of the target. The construction that targets most types of objects is formally nearly identical to relative clauses that target the subject of a passive clause and we argue that it originates in the syntactic reanalysis of such subject relatives. That is, relative clauses that targeted the subject of a passive clause have been reanalysed as relative clauses that target the object of an active clause. This shows a rare type of change in relative clause constructions, which is unique in Bantu, but grounded in the universal tendencies captured by the accessibility hierarchy.

Relative clauses are barriers to wh-movement for young children

1995 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill De Villiers ◽  
Thomas Roeper
Keyword(s):  
Short Stories ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
One Year

ABSTRACTTwo studies are described which investigate preschool children's sensitivity to relative clauses as barriers to the movement of wh-questions. The children were presented with short stories followed by questions in which the wh-word had two possible sites of interpretation, the ungrammatical option being inside a relative clause. A cross-sectional study with 23 children aged 3;1 to 6;1, and a longitudinal study over the course of one year with 12 children aged 3;1 to 4;1 at the start, found young children refused to extract wh-questions from the ungrammatical site inside a relative clause. This confirms other findings that children's early grammars are sensitive to universal constraints on movement. In addition, the children differentiated between wh-complements and relative clauses in their tendency to mistakenly answer the medial wh-complementizer but not the wh-relative pronoun. Explanations for the latter are framed in terms of children's initial assumptions about the attachment of complements.

scholarly journals Headless Relative Clauses in Pesh

2021 ◽  
pp. 509-546
Author(s):  
Claudine Chamoreau
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Left Edge ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Case Marker ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
The Right ◽  
Almost All

The aim of this study is to describe the two main kinds of headless relative clauses that are attested in Pesh, a Chibchan language spoken in Honduras: free relative clauses, which use a wh-word that functions as a relative pronoun at their left edge and a subordinator at their right edge, and headless relative clauses, which lack a wh- word but show a case marker or the topic marker at the right edge of the clause. The first type is less frequently attested in the natural corpus this study relies on, although the corpus does contain various instances of maximal, existential, and free-choice free relative clauses. Each of the constructions is distinguished by features of the wh-word and/or by certain restrictions regarding the tense of the verb in headless relative clauses or the type of verb in matrix clauses. The second type of headless relative clause, the ones that do not use a wh-expression, are much more frequent in the corpus and behave like headed relative clauses that lack a wh-expression. They are like noun phrases marked by a phrase-final case marker or the topic maker. The case or topic markers are used for light-headed relative clauses and for almost all types of maximal headless relative clause that have neither a light head nor a wh-expression, in contrast to maximal free relatives, in which only locative wh-words occur.

On amharic Relative Clauses

1972 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hailu Fulass
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
The Right

In what follows I would like to discuss the structure of Amharic relative clauses. In the course of the discussion, I would like to make the following three claims which I will attempt to substantiate in turn. First, I believe that relativization is a kind of pronominalization and, consequently, the particle yä- that is attached to the main verb (or its auxiliary) of the relative clause is not a relative pronoun. Second, I maintain that the ‘yä- clause’ in subject position in Amharic cleft sentences is also a relative clause with an unspecified element as its head. My third claim is that Amharic genitive phrases originate from relative clauses and that the noun (phrase) in the genitive phrase to which the particle yä- is attached in surface structure is governed by a preposition in underlying structure, and the head of a genitive phrase is the head of the under-lying relative clause. In this connexion, I also argue that there is a rule in Amharic which moves the particle yä- (to the right) over, at least, one constituent.

scholarly journals relative clause and its tones in Tswana

2010 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 227-242
Author(s):  
Sabine Zerbian
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Prosodic Phrasing ◽  
Demonstrative Pronoun ◽  
Current Article

The morpho-syntax of relative clauses in Sotho-Tswana is relatively well-described in the literature. Prosodic characteristics, such as tone, have received far less attention in the existing descriptions. After reviewing the basic morpho-syntactic and semantic features of relative clauses in Tswana, the current paper sets out to present and discuss prosodic aspects. These comprise tone specifications of relative clause markers such as the demonstrative pronoun that acts as the relative pronoun, relative agreement concords and the relative suffix. Further prosodic aspects dealt with in the current article are tone alternations at the juncture of relative pronoun and head noun, and finally the tone patterns of the finite verbs in the relative clause. The article aims at providing the descriptive basis from which to arrive at generalizations concerning the prosodic phrasing of relative clauses in Tswana.  

scholarly journals Relativizator koji u prijevodima Kur’ana Besima Korkuta i Esada Durakovića / Relative pronoun who in translations of Quran

2019 ◽  
pp. 209-229
Author(s):  
Irma Kaltak
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Basic Characteristics

The terms relative clause and relative pronoun are very often present and described in various ways in linguistic books. These descriptions mainly contain only basic indications for understanding the terms, while various doubts and imperfections occur due to which the problem itself has intrigued a large number of linguists. This paper will review the basic characteristics of relative clauses, with an analysis of it in Bosnia, Croatian and Serbian language. The nature of relative clauses introduced with the relative pronoun who (which, that), antecedents which occur with the relative pronoun who (which, that), and syntactic-semantic features of these relative clauses are observed. The goal of the research is to distinguish the types of relative clause introduced with relative pronoun who (which, that) in translations of Quran. The empirical and statistical analyses of relative clauses in this paper were based upon a corpus of several thousand relative clauses from two translations of Quran: first one by Besim Korkut (the 1977 “El-Kalem” edition) and second one by Esad Durakovic (the 2004 “Svjetlost” edition). The relative pronoun who (which, that) in Korkut’s translation introduces 49,8% (2752 clauses) out of 5538 relative clauses, while the same relative pronoun introduces 40% (2192 clauses) clauses out of 5414 relative clauses in Durakovic’s translation.

scholarly journals Headless Relative Clauses in Matlatzinca

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-176
Author(s):  
Enrique L. Palancar ◽  
Leonardo Carranza Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Common Type ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Natural Data

In this chapter, a rich array of headless relative clauses in Matlatzinca (Atzincan, Oto-Pamean, Oto-Manguean; Mexico) is presented, mainly based on the patterns found in a corpus of natural data from spontaneous narratives and conversations by fluent native speakers. While free relative clauses are attested in the language, by far the most common type of headless relative clause is an asyndetic clause, i.e., a clause with no complementizer or relative pronoun. Maximal and existential free relative clauses are only found with the wh- words for ‘who,’ ‘what,’ and ‘where,’ but free-choice free relative clauses apparently also allow for the wh-word for ‘how much.’

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document