Relative clauses Chapter 11

A relative clause is a special kind of subordinate clause whose primary function is as modifier to a noun or nominal. We examine the case of relative clause modifiers in NPs first, and then extend the description to cover less prototypical relative constructions.

Relative clauses as modifiers of nouns Examples of the noun-modifying relative clause are given in [ I ] : [ I ] The secretary wrote to [all the members who were absent from the meeting]. ii [The film which I needed] is unobtainable. In [i] the underlined relative clause modifies members and combines with it to form the head nominal of the bracketed NP: members who were absent/ram the meeting. Similarly in [ii] the relative clause modifies film, and film which I needed forms the head nominal that is determined by the. The relative clauses here are introduced by the relative pronouns who and which, whose interpretation is provided by their antecedents, members and film respectively. The relation between a pronoun and its antecedent is called anaphora. It is a crucial property of relative clauses that they always contains an element - actually present or understood - that is anaphorically related to an antecedent from which it derives its interpretation . This is the basis for the term relative clause, and likewise for relative pronoun, which applies to the who and which in [ 1 ] . The antecedent is always the head noun or nominal modified by the relative clause. In order to draw attention to this essential feature of relative clauses, we will use the symbol 'R' for the element in them that is anaphorically related to an antecedent.

For the relative clause in [ I i] we thus have "R were absent from the meeting". R has members as antecedent, so we understand that some members were absent from the meeting, and it is to all of these that the secretary wrote. For [ii] we similarly have "I needed R". The antecedent is film, so I needed some film and this film is unobtainable. The way this feature distinguishes relative clauses from content clauses is illustrated in [2] : [2] RELATIVE CLAUSE : They rejected the suggestion which your son made. II -CONTENT CLAUSE : They rejected the suggestion that your son was lying. For [i] we have "your son made R", with suggestion as the antecedent: we understand that your son made some suggestion, and they rejected it. In [ii], however, there is no such R element in the subordinate clause. The clause does not contain any anaphoric link to the head noun suggestion: it merely gives the content of the suggestion.

Wh and non-wh relative clauses Although it is an essential feature of the modifying relative clause that it contain an anaphoric link to the head noun, there doesn' t have to be an overt pronoun to express that link. The relative clauses that do contain an overt anaphoric link like who or which are called wh relatives. There are others that don' t, and they are the non-wh relatives. They come in two subtypes: one kind that is introduced by the clause subordinator that (which also occurs in declarative content clauses such as [2ii]) and another kind that doesn' t. So we have this picture so far: [3] WH RELATIVE: The film which I needed is not obtainable. iii NON-WH: THAT RELATIVE The film that I needed is not obtainable. BARE RELATIVE The film I needed is not obtainable. The non-wh relatives with the subordinator, as in [ii], are called that relatives. Those where the subordinator is omitted, as in [iii], are called bare relatives. There is no relative pronoun in [ii] or [iii], but there is still an anaphoric relation to the head noun film; these, no less than [i], can be represented as "I needed R", with R functioning as object and interpreted as some film. The idea that needed in [ii-iii] has a covert object is evident from a very simple fact: although need is transitive, and has to have an object in canonical clauses, here we cannot add an overt object for it: [4] *The film that I needed more time was not obtainable.

Here the NP more time has been added as a direct object (and an appropriate one: I needed more time is fully grammatical as a main clause). But it makes the sentence ungrammatical. Why is that? Because needed has already got a direct object; it just isn't overt in this relative clause construction. The '_' notation in [ii/iii] thus indicates the covert presence of the R element.

The relativised element The overt or covert element R that is anaphorically linked to the head noun is called the relativised element. It can have a range of functions within the relative clause, as illustrated in [5] (where we use wh relatives because the relativised element is overt): [5]. SUBJECT some friends [who saw her] ii .OBJECT a key [which she found] Iii. COMP OF PREPOSITION those books [which I referred to] Iv. ADJUNCT OF TIME the day [when you were born] V. ADJUNCT OF PLACE a place [where you can relax] Vi. ADJUNCT OF REASON the reason [why she got angry]

Non-wh counterparts of the wh relatives , where the notation '_' again marks the position of the covert R element: [6] SUBJECT some friends [that _ saw her] ii OBJECT a key [(that) she found _] 1lI COMP OF PREPOSITION those books [(that) I referred to _] IV ADJUNCT OF TIME the day [(that) you were born _] V ADJUNCT OF PLACE a place [(that) you can relax _] VI ADJUNCT OF REASON the reason [(that) she got angry _] Parentheses around that indicate as usual that it is optional: in such cases both that and bare relatives are permitted. Where the gap is in subject position, that is not omissible. We can have, for example, Anyone who wants this stuff can have it, but !Anyone wants this stuff can have it is not Standard English. The non-wh construction is not always available when the relativised element is adjunct (or complement) of place; the example in [v] , with the head noun place, is perfectly acceptable, but in sentences with head nouns less likely to suggest location, a wh relative would normally be required

Relative words in integrated and supplementary relative clauses The major relative words are: who whom whose which when where why When, where, and why indicate time, place, and reason respectively.

Gender: personal vs non-personal A secondary gender system is based on the contrast between personal and non-personal. This applies to interrogative and relative pronouns - but in the relative construction that we are currently considering the non-personal pronoun is different from the interrogative: INTERROGATIVE RELATIVE 1-PERSONAL Who did you see ? the person who annoys me most 2-NON-PERSONAL What did you see ? the thing which annoys me most Note also that while interrogative whose is personal, relative whose is neutral as to gender: compare personal a guy whose car was stolen and non-personal a book whose pages were falling out. (In interrogatives this doesn't happen: you can't ask about a collection of old books * Whose pages are falling out?) Who is used for humans primarily, but sometimes other entities, like robots, extraterrestrials, or animals, especially pets: She was stroking the cat, who was looking extremely contented.

Case : nominative vs accusative Who is a variable lexeme. In addition to its nominative form who and its genitive form whose, it also has an accusative form whom. The nominative is required in subject or predicative complement function. The complement of a fronted preposition is normally accusative (the woman to whom he was engaged). Elsewhere BOTH cases are found, with the accusative being more formal in style. One difference from interrogative clauses, however, is that in integrated relatives the choice between the cases is very often avoided by use of the non-wh construction : [ 1 8iii] is used as a neutral way of sidestepping the choice between the distinctly formal [ 1 8ii] and the distinctly informal [ 1 8i]. [ 1 8] the applicants who we interviewed [nominative: informal] 11 the applicants whom we interviewed [accusative: formal] III the applicants (that) we interviewed [non-wh: neutral]

PLEASE READ THE PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR NOTE. PAGE 191