Appositive Relative Clauses in English

Loock, Rudy

doi:10.1075/sidag.22

Cited by 45 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(See also Quirk et al . 1985: 366, table 6.33, as well as van der Auwera 1985 and Loock 2010: 14–15 for such a position.) We may surmise that this conception is a direct consequence of these authors’ conflating the RV and the relativiser, a position which necessarily entails that that and zero as RC introducers must also be ‘relative pronouns’.…”

Section: Relative Clauses: Structural Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…We find wh-pronouns in a-restrictive relatives, as in (5a), restrictive relatives (5b), non-restrictive (appositive) nominal relatives (6) and propositional relatives 7: see also example 2 Note first of all that neither that nor zero could replace the wh-pronoun/adverb where in the nonetheless integrated relative clauses in (5a) and (5b). These RMs would also be ruled out almost by definition as clause introducers of the non-restrictive relatives in (6) and (7) (see Quirk et al 1985Quirk et al : 1257Dik 1997: 39; see Loock 2007Loock , 2010 and section 4.2 below for this subtype). Corpus data confirm the virtual absence of that as an NRRC introducer too.…”

Section: Relative Markers Vs Wh-marked Relative Pronouns: Distributiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, they break up the flow of the discourse on some referent in order to elaborate or comment on it in some way. See in particular Loock's (2007Loock's ( , 2010 subtype of appositive relatives which he calls 'Subjective', where the NRRC evokes an aside, a comment or an evaluation of the host referent or the state of affairs evoked via the main clause. An example: is dominant, the most dominant one of all characterising the status of the NRRC as a whole (see figure 2 below).…”

Section: Non-restrictive (Appositive) Relativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In communicative terms, while RRCs help recipients pick out or identify a particular referent, NRRCs, which are in apposition to their host phrase or clause, do not: their use assumes that the referent of the relative pronoun has already been identified, and they serve simply to add further, non-identifying (though discourse-relevant) information about it. Indeed, as fully fledged discourse units corresponding semantically to complete predications, carrying a potentially independent illocutionary force in relation to the main clause, NRRCs perform certain specific functions within the wider discourse: see Loock (2007, 2010) and section 4.2. Integrated relatives (ARRCs and RRCs), on the other hand, correspond semantically only to (complex) predicates.…”

Section: Relative Clauses: Structural Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Revisiting the system of English relative clauses: structure, semantics, discourse functionality

Cornish¹

2017

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this article is to uncover the system underlying three types of English relative clauses, and to characterise their distinctive uses in discourse: NP-integrated ones, namely restrictive and ‘a-restrictive’ relative clauses, and non-integrated ones, represented by non-restrictive relatives.The area at issue is central, since understanding the functioning of these constructions requires reference to the fundamental interface between grammar (language system) and discourse (language use). The discourse functions of the three subtypes of relatives are claimed to be underlain by their intrinsic morphosyntactic and semantic properties. A major aim is to highlight the relative degree of ‘communicative dynamism’ of each subtype of relative clause, in terms of its respective contribution to the construction of discourse.In doing so, the article focuses on the distinctive properties of presupposed as well as non-presupposed restrictive relatives, and of definite as well as indefinite NPs containing integrated relatives more generally. Along the way, it critically examines certain controversial conceptions of the structural and functional features of the constructions at issue, and, in particular, the claim that there is no essential distinction to be drawn between ‘integrated’ and phrase-external relative clause subtypes at all.

show abstract

Section: Relative Clauses: Structural Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Relative Markers Vs Wh-marked Relative Pronouns: Distributiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Non-restrictive (Appositive) Relativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relative Clauses: Structural Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revisiting the system of English relative clauses: structure, semantics, discourse functionality

Cornish¹

2017

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, non-restrictive relative clauses (NRCs) are used to add information about the noun phrases they modify (Loock, 2010). These two types of ERCs are usually syntactically, semantically and phonologically different.…”

Section: English Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance in Processing English Non-restrictive Relative Clauses in Thai EFL Learners’ Interlanguage

Rattanasak¹,

Phoocharoensil²

2014

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examined the acquisition of English non-restrictive relative clauses (NRCs) by L1 Thai learners, focusing on avoidance strategies applied in the learners' interlanguage. The theoretical frameworks of the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH) and the Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis (PDH) were the main hypotheses predicting avoidance behavior employed by the learners. The research participants were 80 Thai EFL high school students of high and low proficiency levels. The data were elicited through a sentence combination task and a Thai-English translation task. The findings, overall, suggested that Thai EFL learners, by and large, avoided using the more marked NRC types in the NPAH. The learners' avoidance was evident in the tasks from the shifting of more marked types to less marked ones. The findings also showed that the more advanced learners tended to employ more avoidance behavior with regard to the NPAH, which may be attributed to their greater exposure to the L2 rules and more knowledge of the differences between the L1 and L2 structures; this resulted in the use of alternative ways to complete the given tasks more easily. The center-embedded NRCs, more precisely, were found to be problematic for learners, which supports the prediction of the PDH that clauses embedded after the subject positions may interrupt the processing of a complex structure of RCs. The learners, therefore, avoided center embedding and changed it to right embedding with little awareness of the ungrammaticality of the NRC sentences.

show abstract

(Non)Restrictive Nominal Modification

Fabricius‐Hansen¹

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter is concerned with the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive modification of nouns, focusing on relative clause (RC) modification but with a view also to adjectival/participial (AP) modification. After a brief introduction to the traditional notion of (non)restrictiveness, it presents a preliminary semantic characterization of (non)restrictiveness in relation to RCs and some observational characteristics of restrictive and nonrestrictive RCs, respectively. The central part of the chapter discusses the formal (syntactic–)semantic explication of restrictive vs nonrestrictive RC modification, in particular the question of whether or how nonrestrictive modification can be accounted for in compositional terms. Three different formal semantic approaches to this issue are presented: standard syntax with bidimensional semantics, nonstandard syntax with unidimensional semantics, and dynamic accounts. The presentation also looks into the epistemic status and discourse‐relational contribution of nonrestrictive RCs, as compared to independent sentences. As for (non)restrictive AP modification, it is shown that a semantically restrictive AP modifier may be nonrestrictive (nonrestricting) in context. More generally, it is argued that the term “appositive,” which is sometimes used as a synonym for “nonrestrictive,” might be reserved for modifiers that by prosody or punctuation are explicitly marked as being nonrestrictive (nonrestricting).

show abstract

Appositive Relative Clauses in English

Cited by 45 publications

References 0 publications

Revisiting the system of English relative clauses: structure, semantics, discourse functionality

Revisiting the system of English relative clauses: structure, semantics, discourse functionality

Avoidance in Processing English Non-restrictive Relative Clauses in Thai EFL Learners’ Interlanguage

(Non)Restrictive Nominal Modification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About