"Relative clauses" with no relativized element

[Philippe De Brabanter]

Dear all,

this is just to say that the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, like 
several other grammars I'm aware of, does mention the sorts of constructions Tom 
is wondering about (esp. pp. 964-67). They're treated as noun complements, 
whereas relative clauses usually function as modifiers of nouns.
H&P give a useful list of nouns licensing these complements (a list which 
confirms Suzanne Kemmerer's point that these nouns do not always have a verbal 
counterpart taking a content clause as its complement — H&P suggest that the 
most frequent of those licensing nouns is fact).
They also point out that content clauses can also sometimes function as 
supplements (i.e. appositives), as in

I'm inclined to favour your first suggestion, that we shelve the proposal until 
after the election.

This confirms Suzanne's suggestion that we shouldn't say that the clausal noun 
complements are appositives.

One last interesting point. On p. 967, H&P show that the licensor may sometimes 
be more than just a noun, with certain constructions like have + licensing NP or 
existential there + be facilitating (or being conditions for) the clausal noun 
complement:

The present system has the disadvantage that it is inordinately complicated.
vs. ? The disadvantage that it is inordinately complicated has been overlooked.

Probably an example like

This principle may ground some optimism that the account can be usefully 
pursued. (M. Sainsbury 2002: "Reference and anaphora", Mind & Language)

also derives its acceptability from a construction rather than from just 
optimism.

Best,

Philippe De Brabanter
Paris 4 - Sorbonne



________________________________
From: E.G. <eitan.eg at gmail.com>
To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
Sent: Fri, 10 September, 2010 19:56:23
Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "Relative clauses" with no relativized element

Jespersen and his nexus-substantives should be mentioned (Philosophy of
Grammar, 1924). Also in his MEG and Analytic Syntax one could find
interesting discussions.

Eitan


On 10 September 2010 20:53, Giuliana Fiorentino <
giuliana.fiorentino at unimol.it> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> clauses like:
>
> The importance of being Earnest
> the fact of being late
> the fact that you are late
> the idea that world is round
> etcetera
>
> are not relative clauses but can be considered among syntactic strategies
> in order to nominalise events after a generic noun (working as a classifier
> for nominalised events).
>
> Giuliana
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Thomas E. Payne
>  To: FUNKNET
>  Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:16 PM
>  Subject: [FUNKNET] "Relative clauses" with no relativized element
>
>
>  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
>



-- 
Eitan Grossman
Martin Buber Society of Fellows
Hebrew University of Jerusalem