Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5f95dd588d-r7bst Total loading time: 0.305 Render date: 2021-10-28T19:06:53.833Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

13 - The formation of relative clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Peter Siemund
Affiliation:
Universität Hamburg
Get access

Summary

The term ‘relativisation’ as a grammatical term refers to the modification of a noun phrase through a finite clause (the book that I read). Such modifying clauses are known as ‘relative clauses’ and typically occur after the noun they modify. The formation of relative clauses is a fascinating topic even in standard English, though various additional dimensions come into play once we extend the discussion to non-standard varieties. Moreover, relative clauses have been profoundly investigated from a cross-linguistic perspective, and principles of rather surprising generality have been proposed for this domain of grammar that inform the discussion of English and its varieties in interesting ways.

Some basic definitions

As stated above, relative clauses belong to the area of nominal modification. However, this categorisation does not do justice to the complex properties of these constructions, as there are non-trivial syntactic relations between the relative clause and the noun thus modified. Generally speaking, the modified noun, in addition to being modified, also plays a syntactic role in the relative clause. Let us consider a few examples, starting with the ditransitive sentence in (1).

Type
Chapter
Information
Varieties of English
A Typological Approach
, pp. 258 - 277
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alsagoff, Lubna and Chee Lick, Ho. 1998. The relative clause in colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes 17(2). 127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1. 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard and Kuteva, Tania. 2011a. Relativization on subjects. In Dryer, Matthew S and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 122. Available online at . Accessed 22 December 2011.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard and Kuteva, Tania. 2011b. Relativization on obliques. In Dryer, Matthew S and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 123. Available online at . Accessed 22 December 2011.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2010. Prestige, accommodation, and the legacy of relativewho. Language in Society 39(3). 1–28.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011. Order of relative clause and noun. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 90. Available online at . Accessed 22 December 2011.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1986. Pirahã. In Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, volume I, 200–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2003. English goes Asian: Number and (in)definiteness in the Singlish noun phrase. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, 467–514. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2000. Relative clauses in Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3). 357–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Tanja. 2003. Relative Clauses in Dialects of English: A Typological Approach. University of Freiburg PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend and Dunne, Timothy T. 1990. Syntactic variation in language shift: The relative clause in South African Indian English. Language Variation and Change 2(1). 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2008. Scottish English: Morphology and syntax. In Kortmann, Bernd and Upton, Clive (eds.), Varieties of English: The British Isles, 299–327. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schaub, Willi. 1985. Babungo. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, Smith, Jennifer, and Lawrence, Helen. 2005. No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17(1). 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wee, Lionel and Ansaldo, Umberto. 2004. Nouns and noun phrases. In Lim, Lisa (ed.), Singapore English: A Grammatical Description, 57–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1996. A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language Variation and Change 8. 227–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, Kenneth. 1984. The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen, Roger W. (ed.), Second Languages: A Crosslinguistic Perspective, 39–58. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, Ossi. 1980. Relative clauses in the dialect of Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81. 187–96.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Relative clauses. In Timothy, Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, volume II: Complex Constructions, 141–70. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24(4). 663–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbrook, Mark. 1998. Which way? That way? Variation and ongoing changes in the English relative clause. World Englishes 17(1). 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1998. Resumptive restrictive relatives: A crosslinguistic perspective. Language 74(2). 335–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×