Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
1
3
4
4
7
1.1
Function:
In the vast majority of cases, relative clauses function as modifiers of a noun or nominal, i.e.
they are dependents on the level of a noun phrase (NP). In the example in Exercise 1, the
relative clause modifies the N book.
Internal structure:
Relative clauses always have a gap in their internal structure. That is, in a relative clause there
is an element missing from its canonical position in a corresponding main clause. Reconsider
the relative clause in:
(1) He bought me the book [which I need].
In this example relative clause, the object which is licensed by the predicator need is missing
from the place where objects are found in main declarative clauses:
[which I need ______ object] vs.
I need __________object.
The missing element - the relativised element or R-element - in the relative clause is
anaphorically related to an antecedent, i.e. the head noun or nominal modified by the relative
clause (book in example sentence (1)). The antecedent determines the interpretation of the gap.
As a consequence, relative clauses differ in structure from declarative main clauses in two
respects. In order to convert the relative clause into a corresponding main clause, two
adjustments are required:
1) if there is a relative word (relative pronoun), it has to be deleted. This gives us:
[which I need] -> [I need...] (still an incomplete main clause)
As can be seen, the relative clause contains a gap. We need something after the verb need.
2) an element has to be supplied to fill this gap. It would have to be filled by the antecedent of
the relative element (together with an appropriate determiner), as in
[I need ___] -> [I need the book]
Summary: The gap left by the relativised element and its anaphoric relationship to the
antecedent are the defining characteristics of relative clauses. These characteristics distinguish
relative clauses from content clauses.
The relativised element may be overtly realised within the relative clause as a wh-relative word.
In example sentence (1), it is represented by the relative word which. Under certain conditions
(which will be discussed below) the relativised element may, however, also be covert, as in
(1a) He bought me the book [I need].
EXERCISE 2: In the noun phrases below, (i.) put the relative clauses in brackets, (ii.) identify the
gap corresponding to the R-element and name the function of the R-element. Then,
(iii.), underline the antecedent and (iv.) rewrite the relative clause as a main clause.
Example:
the book [which I need
^ ]
gap
a) the
people
who
met
him
function of R-element:___________________
b) the
people
who
she
knows
function of R-element:___________________
iv. _______________________________________________________________________
c) the
day
when
you
came
to
iv. _______________________________________________________________________
d) the
book
which
you
spoke
about
function of R-element:___________________
iv. _______________________________________________________________________
e) a
place
where
you
can
relax
function of R-element:___________________
iv. _______________________________________________________________________
f) the
iv. _______________________________________________________________________
These exercises reveal three further characteristics of relative clauses:
1) The relativised element can have a number of different functions within the relative clause.
2) Especially where the relativised element is an adjunct, it may not be possible to use the
antecedent itself to fill in the gap. This is the case in (e), where a place has to be rephrased to
a greater extent in rewriting the relative clause as a main clause.
3) In (f) we have a more complex type of relative clause. Here, the relative word is part of a
relative phrase. In this case, the full relative phrase is fronted in the relative clause, and the full
phrase is used to fill the gap in the corresponding main clause. Note, however, that here as
elsewhere, a relative word merely makes the R-element visible.
1.2
1.2.1 Wh-relatives
Wh-relative clauses are clauses in which the R-element is overt. This means that the relative
clause is marked by the presence of a relative word, e.g. who, whom, whose, which, where, why
etc., as in example (2). This relative word makes the R-element visible. In wh-relatives, the
relative word (the overt R element) always appears in clause-initial position.
The choice of relative word depends on the antecedent of the R-element:
- A relative pronoun, e.g. who, which, is chosen if the R-element corresponds to an NP in a
main clause. The choice of who is mainly restricted to animate, typically human, antecedents.
- Another relative word (not called pronoun, because it does not substitute for a noun or NP)
is chosen when the R-element corresponds to a category other than an NP. For example in:
(4) the town where I live ___
where is chosen because here the gap in the relative clause cannot be filled by an NP but, for
example, by a PP:
(5) I live [PP (e.g. in London)]
not
*I live [NP (e.g. London).
Note that in these cases the antecedent has to be rephrased to retrieve the R-element when
rewriting the relative clause as a main clause: in (4), town is the antecedent (filler) for the gap
in the relative clause. However, in (5), where we have turned the relative clause into a main
clause, we cannot simply use town to fill the gap, but have to state the town where the subject
lives.
Sometimes even more complex adjustments are necessary to fill the gap left by the relativised
element:
(6a) the reason why I came to see you ____
(6b) I came to see you to ask you a favour.
In (6b) the to-infinitival VP to ask you a favour (function: adjunct of reason) is one possible
filler of the gap in (6a).
1.2.2 Non-wh-relatives
Reconsider the sentences:
(3a) This is one of the girls that we met at the party.
(3b) This is one of the girls we met at the party.
They show that the R-element need not be overtly represented (made visible) by a relative
word: it may also be covert. These cases are referred to as non-wh relative clauses:
There are two types of non-wh relative clause:
- that relatives: the relative clause is introduced by the subordinator that (3a). Note that there
are syntactic reasons for treating that as a subordinator. These are, however, beyond the
scope of our course (see H&P 2005:186 on relative phrases for more information).
- bare relatives: there is no relative word and no subordinator that (3b).
Regardless of whether or not there is an overt R-element, all types of relative clauses share the
following characteristics:
4
who
we met
at the party.
that
we met
at the party.
we met
at the party.
This diagram shows that the position in which we find the relative word may also be filled by
the subordinator that. Since this position is then filled, we cannot have an overt relative word as
well as the subordinator that. Alternatively, the position in which a relative word can occur may
be left empty.
Furthermore, the diagram shows that even though the relativised element is made visible
(overt) by the relative word, the relative word is not the R-element itself, because the gap is
still there.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
5
EXERCISE 4: The underlined constituents in the following examples are all finite subordinate
clauses. (i) Identify those which are relative clauses, and for each of them identify the
antecedent and state what type of relative clause they are (wh-relative, that-relative,
bare relative). (ii) State which clause type(s) the non-relative subordinate clauses are.
What evidence do you base your judgement on?
a) I wonder who they have in mind for that job.
(i)________________________________________________________________________
(ii)________________________________________________________________________
c) The prize was awarded to the girl who spoke most clearly.
(i)________________________________________________________________________
(ii)________________________________________________________________________
1.3
Syntactic restrictions with respect to the choice of relative construction.
Consider the following sentences:
(7a) This is the girl who went to the party.
(7b) This is the girl that went to the party.
(7c) *This is the girl went to the party.
In written Standard English, we have to use either a relative word (a wh-relative clause) or
the subordinator that when the relativised element functions as subject of the relative clause.
The use of a bare relative clause (*7c) is ungrammatical in this case.
2.2
Syntactic differences between supplementary and integrated relative clauses
a) Selection of clause types:
Both wh-relatives and non-wh relatives can be used as integrated relative clauses:
(9a) The soap operas which the kids watch all the time are incredibly stupid.
(9b) The soap operas that the kids watch all the time are incredibly stupid.
(9c) The soap operas the kids watch all the time are incredibly stupid.
7
Supplementary relative clauses, in contrast, are almost always of the wh type, and bare
relatives are ungrammatical as supplementary relative clauses:
(10a) These soap operas, which the kids watch all the time, are incredibly stupid.
(10b) ?These soap operas, that the kids watch all the time, are incredibly stupid.
(10c) *These soap operas, the kids watch all the time, are incredibly stupid.
b) Antecedents which only allow supplementary relative clauses:
Supplementary relative clauses may take clauses (not only nouns) as their antecedent.
(11) Max arrived late, which caused some delay.
In this case, the supplementary relative clause is attached more loosely, i.e. it is not embedded
in a noun phrase or any other constituent and thus functions as supplement (= adjunct) on
clause level.
With proper nouns (proper names) as antecedents, only supplementary relative clauses are
grammatical.
(12) Max, who is usually very punctual, was twenty minutes late.
These two types of antecedents are ungrammatical with integrated relatives.
Note, however, that a proper noun used with a determiner is grammatically (and semantically)
treated like a common noun. It therefore can occur with an integrated relative clause, e.g.
(13) This isnt the Max (that) I know.
c) Antecedents which only allow integrated relative clauses:
Integrated relatives accept nouns determined by no, any or every as well as fused determinerheads (see Script 6) , i.e. expressions consisting of no, any or every compounded with one,
body or thing, as antecedent (14). Supplementary relatives do not (15).
(14) Nobody / No candidate who scored 50% or more has ever failed.
(15) *Nobody / No candidate, who scored 50% or more, has ever failed.