"Relative clauses" with no relativized ele

[Arie Verhagen]

And as another addition: the clauses that can only be introduced by *that* (with no role to 
play in the subordinate clause) may be seen as (subtypes of) complement clauses, 
expressing a proposition with the noun functioning as Complement Taking Predicate (CTP), 
expressing a propostional attitude, epistemic/evaluative stance, etc. (following analyses by 
Thompson, Diessel, Langacker, myself, and others), i.e. not relatives. Cf. constructions like 
"The claim is that X" (traditionally analysed as subject clauses), "I claim that X", "I put forward 
the claim that X", in which the relationship between the verb or noun and the that-clause is 
comparable to the one in "The claim that X".

--Arie Verhagen

----------------
Message from Rong Chen <rchen at csusb.edu>
10 Sep 2010, 23:42
Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "Relative clauses" with no relativi

> To add to Joanne's comments:
> 
> There are basically three ways to distinguish an appositive clause
> (AC) from a relative clause (RC).
> 
> 1) An AC can only be led by *that* while an RC can be led by other
> pronouns.
> 
> 2) The AC and the noun it modifies display an equative relationship--one can say X
> (denoted by the noun) is Y (presented by the appositive)--while an RC often doesn't
> (except, perhaps, when the relative clause is sentential).

> 3)--which Tom noted--*that* is not part of the clause in an AC; but a relative pronoun
> is always part of the clause in an RC.
> 
> Rong Chen
>