Relative and Pseudo-Relative Clauses in Slovene

This research study focuses on English relative clauses and their translations into Indonesian found in the “Houseboy and Maid”. This study aims at finding out the types of English relative clauses found in the story “Houseboy and Maid” and the types of shifts occured in the translation process. The analysis used the theory of relative clauses that is proposed by Quirk (1985), Sneddon (1996) and the theory of translation shift proposed by Catford (1965). The process of collecting data is started by reading the entire data source in order to understand the story and observe the possibility of the data source that can be taken from the story “Houseboy and Maid”. The method of collecting data is firstly, the data source is read to find out the types of English relative clauses. This research study indicates that there are two types of English relative clauses found in the story “Houseboy and Maid”, they are: Restrictive relative clause and non-restrictive relative clause. There are some types of relative clauses found in the data source. First, it can be seen that the types of English relative clauses found in the data sources are restrictive relative clause as subject, restrictive relative clause as object, restrictive relative clause as prepositional object, non-restrictive relative clause as subject, and non-restrictive relative clause as object. Secondly, the types of translation shifts that are found in the novel are as follows: structure shifts, level shifts, and unit shifts. This study intends to: (i) analyze the types of relative clauses and its constituent structure found in the data source, (ii) analyze the types of translation shifts of relative clause in the translation process from source language into target language.

This study explores characteristics and usage of relative clauses in Thai English in comparison with those in American English. Data are taken from articles published in English newspapers in Thailand and America. Relative clauses are identified and classified into types based on the features: finiteness, restrictiveness and simple/complex. The Z-test is used to evaluate the proportions of types of relative clauses between the two varieties. The findings show that relative clauses in Thai English do not have any forms distinctive from those in American English, but quantitative analysis shows that the types of relative clauses are used in distinctive proportions in the two varieties. Thai English has a significantly higher proportion of non-finite and restrictive relative clauses than American English does. It also shows a higher use of shared head-noun and three-layer complex relative clauses. This characteristic of relative clauses in Thai English reflects the process of nativization, where a variety of English is adjusted to its ecology. Since Thailand is a collectivist culture with a high-context type of communication, the types of relative clauses that correspond well with this condition are used at a higher frequency than in the native variety. This suggests a subtle kind of nativization, where distinctions from the native variety do not emerge in terms of overt forms of relative clause constructions but rather in terms of the proportions of certain types of relative clauses.

This research study focuses on English relative clauses and its translations into Indonesian found in the story entitled “The Good Earth”. This study aims to: (i) analyze the types of relative clauses found in the data source, (ii) analyze the types of translation in the translation process from source language into target language. The research study applied the theory of relative clauses proposed by Quirk (1985), Sneddon (1996) and the theory of translation shift which was proposed by Catford (1965). The process of collecting data is started by reading the entire data source in order to understand the story and observe the possibility of the data source which could be taken from the data source. The data source was read to find out the types of English relative clauses which were found in the story in the method and technique of collecting the data. The research study found that one type of English relative clauses was found in the story entitled “The Good Earth”. It was the type of Restrictive relative clause found in the novel entitled “The Good Earth”. First, it can be seen that the types of English relative clauses found in the data sources are called as restrictive relative clause as subject, restrictive relative clause as object, restrictive relative clause as prepositional object, non-restrictive relative clause as subject, and non-restrictive relative clause as object. Secondly, there are two types of translation strategies used in translating from source language into target language.

This study aims to: (i) analyze the types of relative clauses and its constituent structure found in the novel entitled “Creatures Behind Houses”, (ii) analyze the types of translation shifts of relative clause in the translation process from source language into target language. This research study focuses on English relative clauses and its translations into Indonesian found in the story entitled “Creatures Behind Houses”. The research applied the theory of relative clauses which was proposed by Quirk (1985), Sneddon (1996) and the theory of translation shift which was proposed by Catford (1965). The process of collecting data is started by reading the entire data source in order to understand the story and observe the possibility of the data source which could be taken from the story “Creatures Behind Houses”. The data source was read to find out the types of English relative clauses which were found in the story in the method and technique of collecting the data. The research study found that one type of English relative clauses was found in the story entitled “Creatures Behind Houses”. It was the type of Restrictive relative clause found in the novel entitled “Creatures Behind Houses”. Based on the results of analysis, it can be seen that there are four types of English relative clauses found in the data sources with restrictive relative clause as subject and there is 1 type of restrictive relative clause as object found in the “Creatures Behind Houses”. Secondly, there are two types of translation shifts which were found in the novel. Those are 5 data that were translated in unit shifts and 1 data that was translated by using structure shifts

This study investigates Chinese ESL learners’ production of English relative clauses in academic writing with corpus-based methodologies. With the help of a series of retrieval codes for Antconc software designed for the investigation, different types of relative clauses in both L1-Chinese students’ and L1-English students’ essays are identified for statistical analysis and textual analysis. The results validate a phenomenon reported in previous studies that Chinese ESL learners generally underproduce relative clauses. Meanwhile, it is found that they especially underproduce finite restrictive relative clauses and non-finite present participial relative clauses. On the other hand, we unexpectedly find they overproduce non-restrictive relative clauses compared with native speakers. The analysis of some representative examples reveals that their behaviours could be attributed to the following factors: 1) the insufficient mastery of the grammatical structure of relative clauses; 2) the way they organize information; 3）the transfer from Chinese “run-on sentences. These findings could provide insights for ESL teachers to understand L1-English students’ problems with producing relative clauses and better teach them how and when to use certain types of relative clauses.

In this chapter I will examine a number of possible linguistic factors which affect the realization of the relative marker (i.e. either as WH, TH or ∅): type of clause – restrictive or non-restrictive features or characteristics of the antecedent/head NP – animateness, definiteness, type of noun modification structure, e.g. determiner, quantifier, superlative syntactic position/grammatical function of the relative in S 2 , the relative clause – subject, object, indirect object, predicate nominative, temporal, locative, stranded and shifted prepositions and genitive Type of clause Most grammars of English, whether prescriptive or descriptive, recognize at least two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive. This distinction is made on the basis of the way in which the head NP or antecedent is modified by the relative clause. A restrictive clause further limits the head NP's reference, while a non-restrictive clause adds only additional information to a head which is already independently identified, or is unique in its reference and has no need of further modification to identify its referent. Classic examples of each type are: (1) The girl who lives next door to me. (restrictive) (2) Mary Smith, who lives next door to me. (non-restrictive) Proper names constitute a class of unique referents because their identity is the same no matter what else may follow after. In the case of possible ‘mistaken identity’ though, proper names may occur with restrictive clauses, e.g. where there is clearly more than one person with the same name. In the following example, the use of the definite article also adds to this interpretation (cf. also Lyons 1977: ch. 7). (3) The Mary Smith that I know lives next door.

Tilapa Otomi (Oto-Manguean; Oto-Pamean; Otomian) has three types of relative clauses in headed relative constructions: (i) an asyndetic relative clause (i.e., a relative clause introduced by no subordinator); (ii) a rc introduced by a determiner that I argue works as a relativizer; and (iii) a relative clause introduced by a relative pronoun recruited from wh-words. Types (i) and (ii) use a gap relativization strategy, and they have a wide functional scope in the relativization hierarchy. Type (iii) only allows for who and where in headed relative constructions, and these constructions are remarkable for two reasons. On the one hand, the locative relative pronoun strategy based on where is the only construction that is available to relativize a locative adjunct. On the other hand, the relative clause based on who can only relativize a human subject and a human possessor, which is typologically surprising, although also found in Zenzontepec Chatino (see Campbell, this volume). All three types of relative clauses can be used as headless relative clauses with the addition of a fourth type involving a light head. In contrast to what happens in headed relative constructions, type (iii) involves a larger set of relative pronouns with a wider functional scope.

Previous works on English relative clauses (RCs) have tested subject and direct object RCs to find an asymmetrical pattern in L2 syntactic development. Studies on English native speakers and L2 learners of English have shown that both groups were better at subject RCs than any other types of RCs. However, these test items potentially involve compounding factors such as animacy effect and word order canonicity. To resolve this issue, the present study used an elicited production task to see how Korean-speaking adult learners of English perform two types of English oblique RCs. Forty Korean college students (18 high proficiency group; 22 low proficiency group) showed better performance at oblique RCs with a short filler-gap dependency (FGD) than oblique RCs with a long FGD. Both proficiency groups showed better accuracy rates when oblique RCs with a short FGD were elicited. In addition, patterns of non-targeted responses can explain how L2 learners differently process two oblique RCs with dissimilar distance between the filler and the gap. Overall, the test results demonstrated a clear linear distance effect between the filler and the gap in producing oblique RCs.

Departing from a typology of heads, in this chapter I propose a typology of relative constructions in Q’anjob’al. Among the features of relative clauses discussed that are common to all Mayan languages are: they are finite, post-nominal with an external head; the use of the same interrogative expressions in questions, interrogative complements and relative clauses; and restrictions on the relativization of agent arguments. Taking into account both the form and the type of expression of the head, I show that Q’anjob’al has four types of relative clauses: (i) nominal-headed relative clauses that contain a nominal or a pronoun head; (ii) determiner-headed relative clauses that contain a determiner or a demonstrative as head; and (iii) headless relative clauses of two subtypes: free relatives, which are headless relative clauses exhibiting a relative pronoun based on a wh-word, and headless relative clauses with a gap. The four types of relative clauses differ in lexical and syntactic features, relativization strategies, and meaning.

This research aims to determine and explain the types and the core constituents of Acehnese relative clauses which so far have not been thoroughly discussed. To collect data for this study, a direct elicitation technique is used, and the data is then analyzed through a qualitative descriptive technique. The results showed that the relative clauses in Acehnese were clauses embedded as modifiers of noun phrases. Similar to the relative clauses’ theory proposed by experts in the Acehnese, there are five types of relative clauses: relativization of subject, relativization of predicate, relativization of object, relativization of possessive, and relativization of noun. Relative clauses in Acehnese are formed by connecting core nouns and relative clauses through the connecting word ‘nyang’, except for the relative clause of the predicate element through the ellipsis of the predicate element. The basic structure of the Acehnese relative clauses is the arrangement of the main constituents preceding (postnominal) the relative clauses. The constituents that described the relative clauses could form words or phrases depending on the reference to the meaning of the relative clauses. In the Acehnese, the following elements do not exist: (1) relative clauses that can be reduced by adverbials such as in English, (2) relative pronouns as in German and relative particles such as in Chinese Mandarin; and (3) the attachment of relative suffixes to verbs as in Korean.

While it is widely recognised that Sanskrit shows two major types of relative construction – one relative–correlative, the other similar to postnominal relative clauses in languages like English – it has not been established what the crucial syntactic distinctions are between these types, given the wide range of syntactic variation found in Sanskrit relative clauses. We offer a detailed investigation of the syntax and semantics of relative clauses in a corpus of post‐Vedic Sanskrit, a form of the language which remains less well studied than the earlier Vedic Sanskrit, particularly in respect of the syntax of relative clauses. We show that the explicit presence of a head external to the relative clause is crucial in distinguishing the ‘postnominal’ type of relative clause, and within the non‐postnominal relatives, it is possible to distinguish relative–correlatives from free relatives, a third type of relative in Sanskrit, based on the presence or absence of a correlative pronoun.

In this study the author analyses the realisation of the Italian relative clause. She points her attention on a particular alternation that takes place in spoken Italian so that a relative clause on an indirect object can be introduced not only by the relative pronouns cui and il quale preceded by a preposition (non conosco nessuno di cui / del quale mi possa fidare), but also by an invariable element, the complementizer che, historically deriving from the weakness of the relative pronoun (non conosco nessuno che mi possa fidare). This study aims to describe the characteristics of this particular type of relative clause in a functional approach, to evaluate their presence in Italian spoken language and to look for explanations of the alternation of different types of relative clauses

In Chap. 9 we examined one type of complex clause, adverbial clauses. In this chapter we will be discussing another type of complex clause, relative clauses. We will explore what relative clauses are, the different types of relative clauses, and how they are formed. Section 10.1 discusses relative clauses and the relative pronouns. Section 10.2 examines relative adverbs. Section 10.3 looks at reduced relative clauses.

The puzzling syntax of free relative clauses (FRs) has been the subject of substantive linguistic work. The core issue, which has divided the field, has been to determine whether this type of relative clause is a complex DP whose head is a wh-pronoun or a wh-clause without the overt external head. Lately, some theoretical reconsiderations of the nature of phrase structuring or, more precisely, of the nature of the syntactic operation Merge allowed for a fresh start in this matter. In this paper, I will follow the proposal put forward by Riemsdijk (2006b) that FRs are structurally ambiguous and that they are derived through grafting, a special type of Merge. As the relevant data in Serbian show, this—still unorthodox, though theoretically legitimate—move is also empirically sound. It also provides us with a new insight into another related phenomenon in this language—the optionality of clitic placement in FRs. The analysis will also reinterpret the status of the particle god typically occurring in this type of clauses, showing why it could be viewed as a complementizer.

A relative clause is a clausal modifier that relates to a constituent of the sentence, typically a noun phrase. This is the antecedent or “head” of the relative construction. What makes the configuration special is that the subordinate clause contains a variable that is bound by the head. For instance, in the English sentence Peter recited a poem that Anne liked, the object of the embedded verb liked is relativized. In this example, the relative clause is a restrictive property, and the possible reference of a poem is narrowed to poems that Anne likes. However, it is also possible to construct a relative clause non-restrictively. If the example is changed to Peter recited this poem by Keats, which Anne likes, the relative clause provides additional information about the antecedent, and the internal variable, here spelled out by the relative pronoun which, is necessarily coreferential with the antecedent. Almost all languages make use of (restrictive) relative constructions in one way or another. Various strategies of building relative clauses have been distinguished, which correlate at least partially with particular properties of languages, including word order patterns and the availability of certain pronouns. Relative clauses can follow or precede the head, or even include the head. Some languages make use of relative pronouns, while others use resumptive pronouns, or simply leave the relativized argument unpronounced in the subordinate clause. Furthermore, there is cross-linguistic variation in the range of syntactic functions that can be relativized. Notably, more than one type of relative clause can be present in one language. Special types of relative constructions include free relatives (with an implied pronominal antecedent), cleft constructions, and correlatives. There is an extensive literature on the structural analysis of relative constructions. Questions that are debated include: How can different subtypes be distinguished? How does the internal variable relate to the antecedent? How can reconstruction and anti-reconstruction effects be explained? At what structural level is the relative clause attached to the antecedent or the matrix clause?