Syntax and Semantics of Relative Clauses

  • Renate Bartsch
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 4b)

Abstract

It is a widely accented assumption that the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clause constructions should be expressed in their syntactic categorical structure as well as in their semantics. This view is held, e.g., by Rodman (1972). There, a syntactic function combines a common noun and a sentence to form a complex common noun in the case of restrictive relative clauses, and, in the case of non-restrictive relative clause construction, a syntactic function combines a term (noun phrase with determiner or a proper name) with a sentence to form a complex term. Rodman formulates this assumption in a Montague grammar in a way that rests on the transformational approaches to relative clause constructions. He thus has to formulate conditions that say under which circumstances which elements of a sentence can be relativized, namely, within a relative clause no other element can be relativized and in the case of non-restrictive constructions, a further restriction has to be imposed to the effect that coreference between the governing term and the relativized element has to be assumed.

Keywords

Relative Clause Definite Description Head Noun Main Clause Subordinate Clause 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ballmer, T. (1972)• Gründe für eine formale Pragmatik. In K. Hyldegaard-Jensen (ed.) Linguistik 1971. Referate des. 6. linguistischen Kolloquiums 11.-14 August, 1971 in Kopenhagen. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
  2. Ballmer, T. (1975). Sprachrekonstruktionssysteme. Scripter Verlag: Kronberg.Google Scholar
  3. Bartsch, R. (1976). The role of categorical syntax in grammatical theory. In A. Kasher (ed.) Language in Fo cus: foundations, methods and systems. Essays inmemory of I. Bar-Hillel. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Bartsch, R., Ehrich, V., and Laierz, J.(1976). Einhrung in die Syntax. Kronberg:Scripter Verlag. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Frege, G. (1892). Sinn und Bedeutung. In Zeitschrift f ur Philosophie und philosophische Kritik. Nf 100; 25-50. Reprinted (1962) in Frege, G. Funktion, Begriffe, Bedeutung. Gôttingen:Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  6. Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds). Semantics. An inter-disciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psycholop-y. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press .Google Scholar
  7. Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of Quantification in ordinary English. In Thomason, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. Rodman, R. (1972). The proper treatment of relative clauses in a Montague Grammar. Papers in Montague Grammar. Occasional Papers in Linguistics,2. UCLA. Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  9. Rohrer, Chr.(1975). Double terms and the Bach-Peters paradox (preliminary version). Manuscript, University of Stuttgart, October, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Thomason, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague (with an introduction by R. Thomason) New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Thompson, S.A.(1971). The deep structures of relative clauses. In C.J. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen (eds). Studies in Linguistic Semantics. Mew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 79–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate Bartsch
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations