Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:47:14.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Nigel Fabb
Nigel Fabb
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 57 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1977). Conditions on rules of grammar. In Chomsky, N.Essays on form and interpretation. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On Wh-Movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A.Formal syntax. Orlando FI. & London: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1985). Knowledge of language. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. LIn 8. 425–504.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1982). On the theory of relative clauses and markedness. The Linguistic Review 1. 247–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. (1979). Appositive relatives have no properties. LIn 10. 211–243.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1988). Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. Ms. University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics, LIn 16. 547–593.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X' syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. (1981). Appositive relatives and the cliticization of who. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: CLS. 108–115.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. (1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituents. LIn 13. 91–106.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perzanowski, D. (1980). Appositive relatives do have properties. Proceedings of NELS X. Ottawa: University of Ottawa. 355–368.Google Scholar
Safir, K. (1986). Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. LIn 17. 663–689.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1985). Restrictive and non-restrictive modification. Stanford: CSLI report.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. LIn 11. 203–238.Google Scholar