Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Relative clauses are subordinate clauses that attach to nouns. Because they add
information to a noun, some grammarians and ESL/EFL teachers call
them adjective clauses.
#A2. The book explains the differences between clauses and phrases.
Relative clause: that explains the differences between clauses and phrases
New sentence: I read a book that explains the differences between clauses and
phrases.
subject: I
verb: read
direct object: a book that explains the differences between clauses and phrases
In the following example, the internal structure of the relative clause is more
complicated because the noun that is the focus of the clause is not the subject of
the clause. The relative pronoun is a connecting word and it is also the direct
object
#B1. I read a book.
#B2. I bought the book to help me prepare for class.
Relative clause process step 1--insert the relative pronoun: I bought that to
help me prepare for class
Relative clause process step 2--move the relative pronoun to the front of the
clause: that I bought to help me prepare for class
Relative clause process step 3--attach the relative clause to its noun
#B3: I read a book that I bought to help me prepare for class.
subject: I
verb: read
direct object: a book that I bought to help me prepare for class
Relative Clause Types
Like wh-questions, relative clauses come in two major types: (1) those that
have the relative pronoun as the subject of the clause and (2) those that have the
relative pronoun as something other than the subject of the clause (object or
complement or object of a preposition).
In addition, relative clauses can be added to nouns in just about any part of a
sentence--at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of sentences. Let's
analyze the location and type of relative clause in each of the following
sentences:
Relative clauses are also classified depending on their relationship with the
noun they modify. A restrictive relative pronoun identifies its noun--and
divides the world into categories. Look at our book example: The book that my
sister recommended was quite useful. The relative clause points to a particular
book--and also means that there are books that my sister did not recommend.
The Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English, which was
published in 2002, is based on the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
English.
Let's try this definition again by analyzing these two sentences. How many
groups of students is each sentence talking about?
2. The students, who want to teach ESL/EFL, try to get a lot of classroom
experience.
What do you think? #1--there are two groups of students. Those who turned in
their papers early and those who didn't. So, the relative clause in #1 is a
restrictive relative clause.
#2--that's about all of the students. It's non-restrictive. Notice that the old
definition about non-restrictives adding unimportant information is not true.
It's even silly. Why would you provide un-important information?! A non-
restrictive provides information that the writer wants you to have but it is
attached to a noun that is already identified and doesn't need anything else to
make you know which one you are talking about.
Better examples for use in our ESL/EFL classes would be something from a
textbook they are using like this example I found in my sociology source:
A classic example of an early woman sociologist is Harriet Martineau (1802-
1876), who was born into a wealthy English family.
This non-restrictive relative clause gives important information that adds to our
understanding of Harriet Martineau but is not needed to define who she was.
Relative pronouns can sometimes be left out; they are understood but not given
in the sentence as in the following examples:
If the relative pronoun is the subject of its clause, then it must be kept.
Otherwise, the relative pronoun can generally be dropped. In which of these
sentences, can the relative pronoun be left out? Where is it required?
#1. I bought a book that was highly required, it's the subject
recommended by my sister. of the relative clause
#2. I bought a book that my sister not required, it's the
recommended. direct object of the
relative clause
#3. The book that is required for this required, it's the subject
workshop comes highly of the relative clause
recommended.
#4. The book that my sister not required, it's the
recommended was quite useful. direct object of the
relative clause
Relative clause creation step #1--insert the pronoun as the object of the
preposition: I got new ideas about teaching from that
Relative clause creation step #2--front the pronoun: but....what to front? Where
does the preposition go? Actually, you have two choices:
Choice #1: Leave the preposition at the end: that I got new ideas about
teaching from...
At TESOL, I bought a book that I got new ideas about teaching grammar from.
Choice #2: Move the preposition with its object to the front. But notice that if
you use this approach, you cannot use that. You have to use which.
*At TESOL, I bought a book from that I got new ideas about teaching
grammar.
At TESOL, I bought a book from which I got new ideas about teaching
grammar.
As our students struggle with making this type of combination, you'll find
students leaving the preposition out altogether:
*At TESOL, I bought a book that I got new ideas about teaching grammar.
Relative Clauses vs. Appositive Clauses
Appositive clauses look a great deal like relative clauses. Analyze the
following examples: what kind of word is the clause attached to? what is the
original sentence that the clause was created from?
#1: appositive clause: I like the idea that students can become independent
learners.
1. The clause is attached to a noun--the idea.
2. The underlying sentence is: Students can become independent learners.
#2: relative clause: Students who become independent learners can continue
to learn after they leave our classes.
1. The clause is attached to a noun--students
Based on that analysis, how are these two subordinate clause types different?
A relative clause includes in its internal structure the same noun that it attaches
to. The relative pronoun means the same thing as the noun that the clause is
attached to; the relative pronoun has a grammatical role that combines being a
connector with a role in the syntax of its clause.
An appositive clause does not include the noun that it attaches to; the
appositive clause is like a linking verb--or an equal sign: the idea = students
can become independent learners. The connector that just connects the clause
to the noun without playing any internal role in the clause.
Appositive clauses can be related to particulate verbs and their noun clause
direct objects:
The idea that I shared with my students comes from many years of teaching
experience.
The idea that we must work together as a team guides our department's work.
At the beginning of this lecture, I listed some examples from the sociology
textbook that I'm using for examples. Here's that list again. Try analyzing
these: what's the core sentence? What sentence was changed to make the
relative clause? What's the grammatical function of the relative pronoun in its
clause? Where in the sentence does the relative clause come?
References
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Edinburgh Gate,
Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Notice in each of the above examples that the complement clause occurs
directly after a noun; thus they are noun complement clauses. This is the type
of complement clause that is most likely to get mixed up with relative clauses,
because this noun looks an awful lot like the head NP we discussed with
relative clauses.
How can you tell the difference? Well, in the above examples try to replace
'that' with a WH relative pronoun.
If these were relative clauses we could do this and still have good sentences
with the same meaning as the originals. Since these sentences are no longer
good sentences with the same meaning, we know that the clauses are
complement clauses rather than relative clauses.
Another thing to look at is the concept of the gap. Remember that all relative
clauses have a gap. If you remove the complementizer in the above clauses
you will see a complete sentence with no gap:
Thus these clauses have passed another test in favor of complement clauses.
As far as deletion is concerned, there are sources that say that in the noun
complement construction we can never delete 'that'. I think it is less common,
but I'm not sure about 'never'. What do you think of the following?