Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, A STUDENT'S INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

NOTES ON THE EXERCISES TO CHAPTER 11

1. Underline the finite subordinate clauses in the following examples and say whether they are (a) relative clauses; (b) declarative content clauses; or (c) ambiguous between the two. Give evidence in support of your answers.

Ex The claim that it was an accident seems highly implausible to me.

A The claim that it was an accident seems highly implausible to me.
(b) declarative content clause. Can't be a relative clause because there is no (overt or covert) R element anaphorically linked to the head noun claim.

Ex They rejected the idea that we had advanced.

A They rejected the idea that we had advanced.
(c) ambiguous. In the relative clause reading there is a covert R element functioning as object of advanced and anaphorically related to the head noun idea: "We had advanced some idea, but they rejected that idea". (In this reading, there's nothing in the sentence given to indicate what the idea was.) In the declarative content clause reading there is no such R element anaphorically related to claim — the subordinate clause gives the content of the idea. The idea was that we had advanced, i.e. moved forward or made progress: they didn't agree that we had done so.

2. All the following examples contain a finite subordinate clause: underline those that are relative, and for each of them identify the antecedent and the function of the (overt or covert) relativised element.

Ex I can't find the book you recommended.

A I can't find the book you recommended.
The antecedent is book, and the function of the covert relativised element is object (of recommended).

Ex I can't remember which book she recommended.

A There is no relative clause in this sentence. (The finite subordinate clause which book she recommended is an open interrogative content clause.)

3. Convert any non-wh relatives in the following examples into their wh-relative counterparts.

Ex She told me that the guy that was in charge had a criminal record.

A She told me that the guy who was in charge had a criminal record. (Note that that the guy that was in charge had a criminal record is a declarative content clause.)

Ex The version she finally came up with was a big improvement.

A The version which she finally came up with was a big improvement.

4. The following examples are presented without the usual internal punctuation so as to avoid giving any clues as to whether the relative clauses are integrated or supplementary. Identify the relative clauses, and for each say whether it could be interpreted in either way (with corresponding differences in meaning and punctuation) or in only one way. In the latter case, specify which interpretation is required and explain why the other is excluded.

Ex I was sitting next to Sandra who is studying law at Harvard.

A The relative clause is who is studying law at Harvard, and the only possible reading is as a supplementary relative. A proper noun such as Sandra cannot normally be modified by an integrated modifier relative clause unless it is preceded by a determiner, as in the Sandra who is studying law at Harvard.

Ex There are several points I'd like to make in response to your criticisms.

A The relative clause is I'd like to make in response to your criticisms. It can only be an integrated one because it is a bare relative; supplementary relatives are normally of the wh type and are completely incompatible with non-wh relatives of the bare type.

5. Determine whether the underlined expressions below are: (a) fused relatives; (b) open interrogative content clauses; or (c) ambiguous between the two. Give evidence to support your answer.

Ex Who's going to win is anybody's guess.

A (b) open interrogative content clause. There is no fusion between a head and a relativised element: the expression is not understood as denoting a person (the person who is going to win). The interpretation of the sentence is "The answer to the question `Who is going to win?' is anybody's guess", with the subject thus a subordinate interrogative clause. Note in addition that who is found in fused relatives only under very restricted conditions (see p. 192): we could not say, for example, *Who's going to win is that guy over there.

Ex I remember what she taught me.

A (c) ambiguous. In the fused relative reading, the meaning is "I remember that which she taught me". In the open interrogative reading, the meaning is "I remember what it was that she taught me" — I remember the answer to the question "What did she teach me?". Suppose she taught me the forms of regular verbs in French: then in the fused relative interpretation I remember the forms of regular verbs in French, whereas in the interrogative reading I remember that she taught me the forms of regular verbs in French (but may well not remember the forms themselves).

This page last updated Sun Jul 23 17:53:13 PDT 2006 by GKP.

Ex	The claim that it was an accident seems highly implausible to me.
A	The claim that it was an accident seems highly implausible to me. (b) declarative content clause. Can't be a relative clause because there is no (overt or covert) R element anaphorically linked to the head noun claim.
Ex	They rejected the idea that we had advanced.
A	They rejected the idea that we had advanced. (c) ambiguous. In the relative clause reading there is a covert R element functioning as object of advanced and anaphorically related to the head noun idea: "We had advanced some idea, but they rejected that idea". (In this reading, there's nothing in the sentence given to indicate what the idea was.) In the declarative content clause reading there is no such R element anaphorically related to claim — the subordinate clause gives the content of the idea. The idea was that we had advanced, i.e. moved forward or made progress: they didn't agree that we had done so.

Ex	I can't find the book you recommended.
A	I can't find the book you recommended. The antecedent is book, and the function of the covert relativised element is object (of recommended).
Ex	I can't remember which book she recommended.
A	There is no relative clause in this sentence. (The finite subordinate clause which book she recommended is an open interrogative content clause.)

Ex	She told me that the guy that was in charge had a criminal record.
A	She told me that the guy who was in charge had a criminal record. (Note that that the guy that was in charge had a criminal record is a declarative content clause.)
Ex	The version she finally came up with was a big improvement.
A	The version which she finally came up with was a big improvement.

Ex	I was sitting next to Sandra who is studying law at Harvard.
A	The relative clause is who is studying law at Harvard, and the only possible reading is as a supplementary relative. A proper noun such as Sandra cannot normally be modified by an integrated modifier relative clause unless it is preceded by a determiner, as in the Sandra who is studying law at Harvard.
Ex	There are several points I'd like to make in response to your criticisms.
A	The relative clause is I'd like to make in response to your criticisms. It can only be an integrated one because it is a bare relative; supplementary relatives are normally of the wh type and are completely incompatible with non-wh relatives of the bare type.

Ex	Who's going to win is anybody's guess.
A	(b) open interrogative content clause. There is no fusion between a head and a relativised element: the expression is not understood as denoting a person (the person who is going to win). The interpretation of the sentence is "The answer to the question `Who is going to win?' is anybody's guess", with the subject thus a subordinate interrogative clause. Note in addition that who is found in fused relatives only under very restricted conditions (see p. 192): we could not say, for example, *Who's going to win is that guy over there.
Ex	I remember what she taught me.
A	(c) ambiguous. In the fused relative reading, the meaning is "I remember that which she taught me". In the open interrogative reading, the meaning is "I remember what it was that she taught me" — I remember the answer to the question "What did she teach me?". Suppose she taught me the forms of regular verbs in French: then in the fused relative interpretation I remember the forms of regular verbs in French, whereas in the interrogative reading I remember that she taught me the forms of regular verbs in French (but may well not remember the forms themselves).