"Relative clauses" with no relativized element

[Tom Givon]

Looking through my "English Grammar (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1993), 
vol. I, ch. 6, section 6.6.4. "Noun complements",  p. 298, I find this 
construction described and analyzed as the product of nominalization of 
clauses with verbs that take verbal complements ('know', 'think', 'say' 
etc. The preceding section (6.6.3. "Complex NP's arising through 
nominalization", p. 287) deals more generally with nominalizations. The 
term "noun complements" was used in syntax classes at UCLA in the mid 
1960s, so certainly Joan Bresnan did not invent it.  Best,  TG

===========

Thomas E. Payne wrote:
> Can anyone help me name the following structure in English, and maybe point
> me to some references? I do not find reference to this in the Cambridge
> Grammar of the English Language or any other of my English grammar books.
> But then, maybe I just don't know where to look.
>
>   Here are two examples from a play:
>
> His protestations of devotion in the trial scene are, in our opinion,
> genuine, as is his confession [that his affair with the Countess is
> platonic].
>
> The bracketed clause seems to modify "confession", though there is no
> position for a confession in the clause itself.
>
> . . . forced hither with an impious black design [to have my innocence and
> youth become the sacrifice of brutal violence].
>
>   Here the bracketed non-finite clause seems to modify "design."
>
>   These are not all that rare. I'm reminded of examples like:
>
> "The claim [that my client is a murderer] is totally false."
>
>   Are these relative clauses? If so what kind? Thanks for any help.
>
> Tom Payne
>
>