"Relative clauses" with no relativized ele

[Hwang, Shinja]

I also prefer to refer to them as complement clauses. They differ from the relative clauses since the embedded clause is complete in itself, not lacking anything. These clauses are in an appositive relation with the head noun like 'fact, claim, evidence' and in English they can be linked by 'that', but not by 'which', unlike the relative clause. Compare the examples below:

	The evidence [that(*which) he stole the book] is clearly shown to us.
	The evidence [that/which they used 0 in the trial] was very powerful.

In some languages there is no syntactic difference (such as 'that' vs. 'which' in English), and the criteria may need to resort to some other clues such as whether there is a missing element in the embedded clause which is the head noun.

Shin Ja Hwang


-----Original Message-----
From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Arie Verhagen
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:21 AM
To: 'FUNKNET'
Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "Relative clauses" with no relativized ele

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
>