Những vấn đề về ngữ nghĩa và cú pháp trong sử dụng mệnh đề quan hệ tiếng Anh của học sinh trường Yên Định

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



TRỊNH ĐÌNH LAN



Semantic and syntactic problems in using relative clauses
in English of Yendinh high school students

(Những vấn đề về ngữ nghĩa và cú pháp trong sử dụng mệnh đề quan hệ
Tiếng Anh của học sinh trường Yên Định)

M.A. MINOR THESIS




Field: Methodology
Code: 60.14.10






Hanoi, 2011

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES





TRỊNH ĐÌNH LAN
Semantic and syntactic problems in using relative clauses
in English of Yendinh high school students

(Những vấn đề về ngữ nghĩa và cú pháp trong sử dụng mệnh đề quan hệ
Tiếng Anh của học sinh trường Yên Định)

M.A. MINOR THESIS




Field: Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Supervisor : Dr. Hà Cẩm Tâm

Hanoi, 2011


iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION page i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
I. 1. Rationale 1
I. 2. Objectives of the study 1
I. 3. Research Question 1
I. 4. Scope of the study 1
I. 5. Significance of the study 2
I. 6. Methodology 2
I. 7. Organization of the study 2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
1. 1. Overview of relative clauses 4
1. 2. Syntactic features of relative clauses 4
1. 2. 1. Components of relative clauses 4
1. 2. 2. Types of relative clauses 5
1. 2. 2. 1. Finite relative clauses 5
1. 2. 2. 1. 1. The uses of relativizers 6
1. 2. 2. 1. 2. Relative clauses with adverbial gaps 12
1. 2. 3. Positions of relative clauses 14
1. 3. Semantic features of relative clauses 16
1. 3. 1. Restrictive relative clauses 16

1. 3. 2. Non - Restrictive relative clauses 18
1. 3. 3. Finite relative clauses 19
1. 4. Review of previous researches in the area 21
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY. 23
2. 1. Research question 23


v
2. 2. Design of the study 23
2. 2. 1. Participants 23
2. 2. 2. Data collection instruments 23
2. 2. 3. Data collection 24
2. 2. 4. Analytical framework 24
2. 2. 5. Data analysis. 26
2. 2. 5. 1. Exercise 1 26
2. 2. 5. 2. Exercise 2 29
2. 2. 5. 3. Exercise 3 31
PART C: CONCLUSION 33
I. Major findings 33
II. Implications 34
III. Limitations and suggestions for further study 34
REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX 1 I
APPENDIX 2 IV

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION

This part introduces the rationale, objectives of the study, research question, scope of the
study, significance of the study, methodology. Also, organization of the study is outlined.

I. 1. Rationale
As we know, English has now become the most popular language in the world. In
Vietnam, it has been more appreciated especially after the country joined WTO. Children
learn the language even from kindergarten school. More importantly, English has been
influenced on our education curriculum as a compulsory subject. After years teaching
English at a high school in Yendinh, I find that many students are experiencing a lot of
difficulties when learning English in common and learning to use relative clauses in
particular. They often make many mistakes in building sentences containing relative
clauses such as, wrong use of relativizers, repetition of the noun/pronoun in the relative
clauses, wrong position of the relative clauses, confusion between restrictive and non-
restrictive relatives, lack of relative pronouns, lack of subject-verb agreement, etc.

I. 2. Objectives of the study
The study aims to find out semantic and syntactic problems of Yendinh high school
students’ in using relative clauses in English in order that teachers can help them improve
their English.

I. 3. Research Question
In this paper, the following question would be addressed:
What problems in using English relative clauses in terms of semantics and syntactics do
high school students often have?

I. 4. Scope of the study
The research question mentioned above has already implied that the research is focused
only on:
 full relative clauses in English.
 high school students.


2
The 10th graders at Yendinh High School are approximately 16 years of age. They come
from the villages surrounding the school. Most of their parents are farmers whose main
work is doing farming. So the students here do not have good conditions to learn English.
Moreover, they have different learning abilities and have different attitudes towards
learning English: some are learning for the entrance exams to colleges or universities,
some are learning only for graduating the final exams and others are learning for nothing,
i.e. they cannot identify what they learn English for. They consider English as a subject
they have to learn at school. Additionally, most of our students have low English
proficiency. They have learnt English for four years at secondary schools. However, their
English background knowledge has been limited. When they come to the 10th form, it is
surprising that they have limited vocabulary and grammatical structures. For some
students, the things they have learnt at secondary school seem to be completely new at the
moment.

With the above mentioned aims and due to limited time and size for a minor thesis, I would
like to deal with written test only. The test for students is taken out from books, textbooks,
grammar books and reference books in English.

I. 5. Significance of the study
It is hoped that the findings of the study would help teachers and students to overcome the
problems and could improve their English performance, especially in using relative

clauses.

I. 6. Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative method was applied for this thesis. A written test was used as
data collection instrument. Data collection was administered to 40 high school students to
get information for the study.

I. 7. Organization of the study
This paper is divided into three parts:
Part A: Introduction includes rationale, objectives, research question, scope of the study,
significance of the study, methodology, organization of the study are presented.


3
Part B: Development consists of two chapters:
Chapter 1 provides theoretical background.
Chapter 2 is the study. It includes methodology and outlines the study design, participants,
data collection instruments, data collection, analytical framework, and data analysis
Part C: Conclusion offers major findings, implications, limitations and suggestions for
further study

4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, a brief description of various propositions about the relative clauses will be
discussed. It is divided into three main sections. Firstly, section 1.1 is the overview of
relative clauses. Secondly, section 1. 2 discusses syntactic features of relative clauses. Next
is section 1. 3 which discusses semantic features of relative clauses. The last section 1. 4
reviews previous researches in the area.

1. 1. Overview of relative clauses
A relative clause, also called an adjective clause, is a dependent clause that modifies a
noun or a pronoun by making it more specific or adding additional information about it.
Relative clauses are typically found after a noun phrase and provide some information
about the person or thing indicated by that noun phrase. They are sometimes called

‘adjective clauses' because, like many adjectives, they often describe and help to identify
the person or thing being talked about. (Yule, 1998, p. 240)
Relative clauses in the following sections are explored not only with syntactic features but
also semantic feature.

1. 2. Syntactic features of relative clauses
In this section, the components of relative clauses and their possible positions of relative
clauses are discussed first, after that is types of relative clauses which are classified
according to their internal structures.

1. 2. 1. Components of relative clauses
A relative clause is a group of words (relativizer, subject and verb) that comes after a noun
and modifies and/or restrict that noun, which is called the antecedent noun. The relative
clause gets embedded in the main clause of the sentence; it becomes a subordinate clause
within the main clause.
Note how the second sentences below are turned into relative clause and embedded in the
sentences. (A = antecedents noun; R = relativizer; S = subject; V = verb)


5
The person was Bob Geldof.
- He was responsible for the concert.
The person who was responsible for the concert was Bob Geldof.
A R/S V
It was a program.
- Geldof is not likely to forget the program.
It was a program that Geldof is not likely to forget.
A R S V
When discussing relative clauses, we will focus on three key components: the head noun,
the relativizer, and the gap. The head noun is the noun modified by the relative clause. The

relativizer is the word, such as who or that …, which introduces the relative clause. It refers
to the same person or thing as the head noun. The gap is the location of the missing
constituent in the relative clause. All relative clauses have a missing constituent, which
again corresponds in the meaning to the head noun.
Thus, consider the relative clause construction:
… the diamond earrings that Mama wore
/\
. (fict)
The head noun is earrings
The relativizer is that, referring to the ‘earrings’
The gap occurs in the direct object position, after the verb wore. The underlying meaning
of the relative clause is that ‘Mama wore earrings’ (Biber et al, 1999)

1. 2. 2. Types of relative clauses
Relative clauses have two main types according to their structures. They are the finite
relative clauses which contain a finite verb as the main verb in the clauses and the non-
finite relative clauses which only contain a non-finite verb as the main verb for the finite
verb is often omitted. The study would like to focus only on finite relative clauses (full
relative clauses) due to the scope of the study.

1. 2. 2. 1. Finite relative clauses
They are relative clauses with the serving of a relative pronoun. The relative pronoun
usually acts as the subject or object of the verb in the relative clause; sometimes, it can
play the role of adjuncts. The most common relative pronouns are that, which, who, whom,
whose.



6
1. 2. 2. 1. 1. The use of relativizers

In Standard English, relative clauses can be formed using eight different relativizers:
which, who, whom, whose, that, where, when and why. The following are examples:
1. The lowest pressure ratio which will give an acceptable performance is always
chosen. (Biber et al, 1999, p. 608)
2. The man who robbed you has been arrested.
3. The man whom I saw told me to come back today.
4. The film is about a spy whose wife betrays him.
5. Well, that's the only way that this can be assessed. (Biber et al, 1999, p. 608)
6. I could lead you to the shop where I bought it.
7. That is the period when he lived here.
8. That is the reason why he spoke.
(Quirk, 1987, p. 380)
In addition, the relativizer can be omitted with many relative clauses (referred to as the
zero relativizer). For example:
The next thing she knows, she is talking to Danny.
To some extent the choice of relativizers is determined grammatically by the role of the
gap in the relative clause. Thus, the pronoun ‘whom’ and the zero relativizer (with rare
exceptions) are used only with non-subject gaps; the pronoun ‘whose’ is used only with
possessive/genitive gaps; and the relative adverbs: ‘where, when and why’ are used only
with adverbial gaps. However, the choice among relativizers is influenced by a number of
additional factors. These other factors include: register, restrictive vs. non-restrictive
function, and animate (human) vs. non-animate head noun. In addition, non-dialects
include other relativizers, which are briefly covered in the following sections:
There is considerable dialect variation in the range of relativizers used in conversation. For
example, the form ‘as’ is sometimes used as a relativizer, as in:
Well, I know one person as'11 eat it.
The wh-word ‘what’ is somewhat more common as a relativizer in Br.English
conversational texts, although it is much rarer than the standard forms: who, which, and
that. Here are some examples:
And you see that truck what just went by.

Gotta makes sure she's got the book what I had last week.


7
Now we will consider only the standard set of relativizers.
There is a complex set of interrelated factors influencing the choice among relativizers,
resulting in skiking differences in their distributions. Later sections provide a detailed
discussion of these factors while overall patterns are introduced here.
The relativizers ‘that, which’, to a lesser extent ‘who’ are the most flexible in their use, in
terms of the gap position in which they can occur and the meanings that they can express.
As a result, they are by far the most frequent forms. The most common use of all three
pronouns is with subject gaps. Subject gaps:
1. I thanked the woman who helped me.
2. The book which is on the table is mine.
3. Do you want a cup of tea that's been brewing for three days?
(Afar, 1989, p. 238)
However, all three of these relative pronouns can also be used with other gap positions:
Direct object gaps:
1. She came up with all sorts of things that she would like for the new
development. (Biber et al, 1999, p. 612)
2. The records which he owns are mostly classical.
3. He took an instant dislike to Leroy, who he attacked twice.
Other gaps (adverbial or complement of preposition):
1. You have to pay for it in the year that you do not make any profit.
2. the mustard pot, which he has been sitting on.
3. the guy who I buy the Mega stuff off. (Leech, 1990, p. 285)
In contrast, the other relativizers are restricted to a specific gap position and are
thus rarer overall: ‘whom and zero’ to non-subject gaps: ‘whose’ to possessive/genitive
gaps; and ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ to adverbial gaps, ‘who’ is restricted in meaning in
that it occurs only with animate (usually personal/human) head nouns. In contrast, the

pronouns ‘that and which’ usually occur with inanimate head nouns, but in certain
circumstances they can also occur with animate head nouns. But this difference means that
‘that, which’ are more common than ‘who’ in most registers, since inanimate head nouns
taking a relative clause are generally more common than animate head with a relative
clause. In conversation and fiction, animate differences are most commonly made with
either a personal pronoun or a proper name, which rarely allow modification with a relative


8
clause. In academic prose, there are relatively few animate references at all. However, the
communicative focus of news, with its emphasis on human, result in a more frequent use
of relative clauses with the pronoun ‘who’. For example, a 20-year-old woman who has
been missing for a week… (news).

Finally, the register distribution of ‘which vs. that vs. the zero relativizer’ also reflects the
stylistic associations of these forms. The relative pronouns beginning with the letter 'wh'
are often considered to be more literate and appropriate to careful language.
The pronoun 'that' and 'the zero relativizer' have a more colloquial flavor and are preferred
in conversation (Biber et al, 1999)

 Who versus which, that and zero
The relative pronoun 'who' is distinctive in that it is used almost exclusively with an
animate (human) head noun.
The relative pronoun 'who' occurs almost exclusively with human heads and in the written
registers, there is a very strong tendency for a relative clause with human head noun to use
'who' rather than 'which' or 'that':
Team Millar rider, Mc. William, who is still looking for a 500 Grand Prix finish,
had a constructive finish.
At the other extreme, the relative pronoun 'which' rarely occurs with an animate head.
Although 'which' is attested in conversation as a relative pronoun with animate heads, this

occurs so rarely that it might be considered as a speech error:
She's just the type of person which everybody would avoid to speak to.
By contrast, relative clause with 'that' freely occurs with animate heads, especially in
conversation. In fact, for many head nouns referring to humans, 'that' is almost as common
as 'who' in conversation:
I thanked the woman that helped me. (Afar, 1989, p. 238)
'that' is a possible alternative after: all, everyone, everybody, no one, nobody, and those:
Everyone who/that knew him liked him. (Thomson, 1989, p. 82)
These same head nouns also commonly take a zero relativizer in conversation:
Who's the ugliest person you've ever seen?
I thought of a girl I used to know called Louise.


9
 Who versus whom, that, and zero
The relativizers 'who, whom' are both used with animate head nouns, but the choice
between them is clear-cut: 'who' is usually used with subject gap positions, while 'whom' is
used with non-subject gaps.
+ 'who' with subject gap:
This gentle man is the doctor who examined the body.
+ 'whom' with non-subject gap:
The man whom I saw was Mr. Jones (Afar, 1989, p. 239)
While 'who' can also occur with subject gaps, this option is rare (and stigmatized in written
texts):
There is a girl who I work with who's pregnant.
'who' is usually used instead of 'whom', especially in speaking, 'whom' is generally used in
very formal English:
The man who I saw (Thomson, 1989, p. 82)
'that' is more commonly used than 'who' as a viable alternative to 'whom'. This choice is
especially preferred in colloquial discourse, apparently to avoid the formal overtones of

'whom', and possibly to avoid making a choice between 'who, and whom':
There may be people that we do not know of.
She took up with the first boy that she came near to liking.
However, with non-subject gaps it is much more common to completely avoid the choice
among the relative pronouns by omitting the relativizers altogether. Interestingly, this
alternative is the preferred choice in both written and spoken registers:
You are one person I can talk to.
For the most part, ‘that’ and ‘zero relativizer’ are alternative to 'whom' only with restrictive
relative clauses; non-restrictive clauses with animate head nouns and non-subject gaps
almost always take 'whom':
This man, whom Elethia never saw, opened a locally famous restaurant.

 Which versus that.
The relativizers 'which and that' are similar in their grammatical potential. They are both
grammatical with a wide range of gap positions and with animate or in-animate heads.
However, the preceding sections have identified a number of important differences in their


10
actual patterns of use.
With animate heads, 'which' is rare, while 'that' is more common, especially in
conversation. A more important difference is that 'which' commonly occurs with non-
restrictive relative clauses, depending on the register. In contrast, 'that' rarely occurs with
non-restrictive clauses. When 'that' does mark a non-restrictive clause, it often occurs in a
series of post-modifiers and is used for special stylistic effects (especially in fiction):
1. Here one may say to those sliding lights, those fumbling airs, that breath and
bend over the bed itself here you can neither touch nor destroy.(fiction)
2. He gazed at the yellow, stained wall with all the spots which dead bugs, that had
once crawled, had left. (fiction) (Biber et al, 1999, p. 615)
The American English preference for that over which reflects a willingness to use a form

with colloquial associations more widely in written contexts than Br.English.
The form 'that' is used for a wide range of grammatical functions in English, including
relativizer, demonstrative pronoun, demonstrative determiner, and complementizer. As a
result, when the head of the relative clause is a demonstrative pronoun, the relativizer that
is strongly dispreferred, as it would create a sequence of two identical or like elements.
This pattern holds all four demonstrative pronouns (this, that, those, these).
Dispreferred patterns, with that:
What's this that I'm looking at?

Preferred patterns, with which:
I recognized a silence like that which pervades a church after a service.
In contrast, relative clauses with indefinite pronouns as head have a strong preference for
that, instead of 'which' as the relativizer. The motivation for this preference might relate to
the colloquial associations of indefinite pronouns.

Dispreferred patterns, with 'which':
There is something which everybody can do to alleviate the problem.
Preferred patterns, with 'that':
It's just something that we can do. I am afraid.
However, it is equally common for relative clauses with indefinite pronouns as head to
omit the relativizer altogether:


11
I will give you anything you want my darling.
He has something he wants to say to you. (Biber et al, 1999, p. 617)

 Whose versus ‘of which’
The relative pronoun 'whose' has a syntactic role comparable to the possessive determiners
(my, your, etc) and is typically used to mark a possessive relationship between a human

head noun and some other noun phrases, with the two together comprising the gap in the
relative clause :
The friend whose dog I'm looking after is in Australia. (Eastwood, 1994, p. 636)
Thus, the underlining meaning of the relative clause in this case, with the gap included, is
I'm looking after the friend's dog.
By extension, ‘whose’ can be used to mark possessive relations with collective entities,
such as corporations, government agencies, clubs, societies, and committee:
A shipping group, whose profits dived last year by near a third, has told
shareholders to expect an even lower result for 1993.

In fact, 'whose' can further used to mark other genitive relationships with completely
inanimate, sometimes abstract, head nouns:
This is a way of proceeding in conceptual matters whose method is to define away
any inconvenient difficulty.
An alternative to 'whose' with inanimate head nouns is phrase 'of-which':
We have an antique table, the top of which has jade inlay, (cf Whose top has jade
inlay). (Afar, 1989, p. 255)
An alternative way of introducing a relative clause with 'of-which' is to front only the
prepositional phrase 'of-which', leaving the rest of the noun phrase to follow it in its normal
position in the relative clause:
He joined a dining club of which the motto was, the whole, the good, and the
beautiful.

Finally, a genitive relation can also be marked by using a post-modifying prepositional
phrase with the preposition ‘with’



12
 The zero relativizer

Speakers and writers can also opt to omit the relativizer altogether in restrictive relative
clauses, thereby avoiding the choice among relativizer. This alternative is possible in
Standard English whenever the gap is not in subject position. Clauses without relative
pronouns are very common in informal English. For example:
The woman Gary met knows your sister.
The parcel 1 posted on Monday still has not got there. (Eastwood, 1994, p. 636)
Relative pronouns usually cannot be left out when they are the subjects. However, in some
conversational varieties, there is a marginally non-standard usage in which the relativizer is
omitted with the gap in subject position. This variant occurs most commonly when the
main clause has an existential 'there' construction:
There is a nice little stream run through the valley
There's a lot of people won't let you do it.
There aren't many people say that nowadays. (Biber et al, 1999, p. 619)

1. 2. 2. 1. 2. Relative clauses with adverbial gaps
There are four major structural variants for relative clauses with adverbial gaps. The choice
that conforms most to prescriptive tradition is to use the relativizer 'which' preceded by the
preposition that marks the adverbial element in the relative clause:
The apartments in which no one lives
The ladder on which I was standing began to slip. (Thomson, 1989, p. 83)
In these constructions, the preposition + relativizer stands for the entire prepositional
phrase in the relative clause. Thus, the relative clause in the sentence: The apartments in
which no one lives has the meaning ‘no one lives in the apartment’, and the relative
clause in the sentence: The ladder on which I was standing began to slip has the meaning
‘I was standing on the ladder’.
A second option for adverbial gaps is to leave prepositions stranded in the relative clause,
making the site of the gap. The relativizer is often omitted with this option:
Some of the houses I go to
The third option is simply to omit the preposition altogether, providing no surface marker
of the adverbial gap. The relativizer is also often omitted in these structures:

The time that I began (fict).


13
A place I would like to go (conversation).
The day that he left (conversation).
The way I look at it (conversation).

Finally, relative clauses function as adverbs that specifically mark adverbial gaps: (1)
‘where’ for place adverbials, (2)’when’ for time adverbials, and (3) 'why’ for reason
adverbials. These forms do not need to occur with a preposition, since they substitute for
an entire adverbial (while the other relativizer substitutes only for a noun phrase):
1) Although relative adverb ‘where’ occurs commonly in four registers with adverbial
gaps, the registers use different head nouns with relative clauses of this type. In
conversation, fiction and news, these head nouns typically refer to physical locations:
The building where he lives is very old. (Afar, 1989, p. 243)
This association is strongest in fiction:
The place where the savages had vanished (fict).
In academic prose, in contrast, relative clauses with ‘where’ are typically used to mark
logical rather than physical locations:
The kind of situation where this type of work is helpful
The points where further inquiry needs to be made
This pattern holds even with the head noun ‘area’, which has a literal meaning referring to
a physical location but is often used to refer to a knowledge domain:
Farmers are slow to see management as an area where the training could help.
(acad).
2) The relative adverb 'when' is much less common than 'where' overall, although it does
frequently occur with the head noun ‘time’ in all four registers:
I cannot think of a time when I would be going by myself.
It occurred at a time when abolitionist leaders hope for improved treatment of

slaves. (acad).
Relative clauses with the head noun ‘time’ are even more common with the zero relativizer
and no preposition:
I have the authority to leave any time I want. (fict).
It's time they paid money back. (news).
You say that every time ‘you come in this door (conversation).


14
Equivalent forms with prepositions would be difficult to form in many of these cases (e.g.
Every time at which you come in this door…).
A few head nouns are moderately common with both ‘where and when’ as relative
adverbs. In conversation, the head noun ‘bit’, referring to a part of a movie or story,
commonly occurs with both relativizers:
You know the bit where the man jumps inside Whoopie Goldberg, (conversation)
But the bit when he's finished that
Similarly, in academic prose the head noun ‘cases’ can occur with either 'where' or 'when':
The contrastive nature of linguistic categories is clear cases where the category
label contains two words. (Acad).
One of the main applications of the scan score is in difficult cases when accurate
estimation of disease activity will have important therapeutic implications. (Acad).
3) The relativizer 'why' commonly occurs with only one head noun 'reason':
The reason why I cannot go is that I do not have time. (Eastwood, 1994, p. 636)
You are the reason why I left school. (conversation).
This combination is common in all four registers; especially in the relatively fixed
expression ‘there is no reason why’: here are two typical examples:
There's no reason why you should not go out for a drink with him.
There's no reason why differing model forms cannot be used to provide differing
pictorial displays.
In conversation, as might be expected, the head noun 'reason' is relatively common with

the zero relativizer:
That's the reason he cannot go. You see. (Eastwood, 1994, p. 636)

1. 2. 3. Positions of relative clauses
Generally, we can use relative clauses to give further information about something or
someone when we mention them in some sentence. A relative clause is put immediately
after the noun or the nominal group which refers to the person, thing or group being talked
about.
The man who came into the room was small and slender. (Thao, 2007, p. 11)
Opposite is St. Paul’s Church, where you can hear some lovely music.
Sometimes, a relative clause can be found after the following pronouns: indefinite


15
pronouns such as someone, anyone, and everything. It is sometimes used after some, many,
much, several, all, and those.
e.g. This is something that I’m very proud of.
Karen Blixen was being feted by everyone who knew her work
Like many who met him in those days I was soon charmed.
…the feelings of those who have suffered from the effects of crime.
In written English, a relative clause (with which as relative pronoun) can be used after the
primary clause (separated with the primary clause by a comma) to say something about the
whole situation described the primary clause, rather than about someone or something
mentioned in it.
e.g. Minute computers need only minute amounts of power, which means that
they will run on small batteries.
I never met Brando again, which was a pity. (Thao, 2007, p. 11)
When a relative clause is connected to a main clause, it can be placed in medial position
(i.e. in the middle) or in final position (i.e. at the end) of the main clause.
The relative clauses in the following sentences are in medial position. Notice that the

relative clauses in the following sentences are modifying the subject (The man, The
woman) of the main clause:
The man who lives next door has a cat.
The woman that the man wants to marry has a large dog. (Yule, 2007, p. 245)
Notice once again that the relative clauses above are modifying the subject (The man, The
woman) of the main clause. Relative clauses typically occur in medial position when they
are modifying the subject of the main clause.
If we look more carefully at these examples, we can see that the relative pronoun in the
sentence: ‘The man who lives next door has a cat’ is a subject relative and in: ‘The woman
that the man wants to marry has a large dog’, it is an object relative. Relative clauses tend
to occur in medial position when there is a subject-subject (S-S) and a subject-object (S-O)
relationship between the antecedent noun and the relative noun.
When relative clauses occur in final position, the relationship tends to be object-subject (O-
S) or object-object (O-O) between the antecedent noun and the relative noun.
e.g. The man has a cat that likes the large dog. (Yule, 2007, p. 246)
In the above sentence, the structural connection is between the object of the main clause


16
and the subject of the relative clause (O-S). In the following example, notice how the
connection is between the object of the main clause and the object of the relative clause
(O-O).
e.g. The woman has a large dog that the cat likes. (Yule, 2007, p. 246)

1. 3. Semantic features of relative clauses
As we know, relative clauses are classified into two types: (1) restrictive relative clauses,
and (2) non-restrictive relative clauses. In the following section, I would like to discuss the
semantic features of each type.

1. 3. 1. Restrictive relative clauses

Restrictive relative clauses are also called 'defining' relative clauses because they define or
restrict the reference of the antecedent noun. They help to identify or classify the person or
thing being talked about (Thao, 2007).

1. Although in practical situations, nominal groups as well as relative clauses are not often
used separately but in combination with other language elements to form larger units, I
decided to examine relative clauses not in clauses but in nominal.
It should be more convenient to look through all nominal groups’ constituents. In
Hallidayan grammar, the nominal group can include such constituents as Thing, Classifier,
Epithet, Qualifier, Numerative, and Deictic when we look at its experiential structure.
These terms carry the senses of semantic relations, not those of syntactic ones. Thing
names class of items in the real world. As the semantic core of the nominal group, it may
be a common noun, a proper noun, or a pronoun. Classifiers are those elements that
surround a thing to indicate particular subclasses of the class represented by the thing. It is
very usual that several classifiers cluster around a thing to indicate subclasses of more
concreteness. A classifier can be an adjective, a participle, or a noun. It is theoretically said
that the combination ‘Classifier’
Thing’ is enough to name all issues acceptably. Epithets don’t create any new acceptable
meaning but inform a characteristic of the referred class/subclass as additional information
helping the converser to refer to a group of more particular items of a subclass. Therefore,
they are adjectives. Like epithets, Qualifiers inform characteristics of the referred in the


17
form of post-positioned elements, whose main types are relative clauses, appositive clauses
or prepositional phrases. In other words, Qualifiers can play the same role as adjectives in
nominal groups. Deictics all share the meaning of ‘pointing’, i.e. indicating whether or not
some specific subsets of the thing are meant. They fulfill the function demonstratively (as
the, this, that, these, those do), possessively (by possessives and genitives as my, your, his,
one’s, Mary’s…) or interrogatively ((as what (ever), which (ever), whose (ever)…).

Numeratives indicate numerical features of the subset represented by other elements of the
nominal group. They are quantifying numeratives (or quantitatives) and ordering
numeratives (or ordinatives) which can be both exact and inexact (Thao, 2007).

In this section, I would like to pay my special attention to the qualifying role of relative
clauses in nominal groups. Like ranking elements of the nominal group, the Qualifier also
has the function of characterizing the Thing; or in other words, it specifies which member
or members of the class designated by the noun. Thus, the Deictic the is usually used at the
first place of the group, signaling that the characteristic in question is definite; and when
the Deictic a is involved, it gives the sense of typical exemplifying at the beginning of the
groups. But the characterization here is in terms of some process with which the Thing is,
directly or indirectly, a participant. In the case that the qualifier is a relative clause, the
Thing is the participant in a major process (while the qualifier is a prepositional phrase, the
Thing will be the participant in a minor process).
e.g.: …the pobble who had no toe
Deictic
Thing
Qualifier

Possessor
Process:
relational
Possessed
In the example above, it is the Thing pobble which plays the role of a participant
(Possessor) in the relational process presented in the relative clause after it.

2. Not only finite relative clauses can specify or give information about a person or a thing
denoted by the Thing of a nominal group, but non-finite clauses can also do the same
functions.
e.g. (words underlined denote Thing)

Do you know the woman talking to Tom?


18
The boy injured in the accident was taken to the hospital.
In a relative clause of this kind (both finite and non-finite), usually, the information
provided is crucial in understanding the meaning of the noun it follows. For example, in
the sentence: The house is being renovated, it is not necessarily clear which house is being
renovated because there is no defining information. In other words, the purpose of the
relative clause here is to clearly define who or what we are talking about. Without this
information, it would be difficult to know who or what is meant. This kind of relative
clauses is called defining relative clauses (Thao, 2007).
e.g. The boy who ran away was Peter’s son.
The relative clause who ran away answers the question ‘which boy?’ So, it is easy to
understand that the clause plays the role of the Qualifier of the core noun, i.e. to define it.
The defining relative clause is not separated with the defined noun by any punctuation.
Again, defining relative clauses can be finite (full relative clauses with Wh-words (accept
what) or that as relative pronouns as discussed in the previous sections) or non- finite (in
the discussed forms). Many examples mentioned above prove this.

1. 3. 2. Non - Restrictive relative clauses
Non-restrictive relative clauses are also called 'non-defining' relative clauses because they
do not define or restrict the reference of the antecedent noun. They only give extra
information about an antecedent.

Hallidayan grammar interprets the relation between clauses in the clause complex by two
systemic dimensions: ‘These two (systems) together will provide the functional framework
for describing the clause complex’ (Halliday, 1994).

(i) the system of interdependency or ‘tactic’ system, parataxis and hypotaxis which is

general to all complexes – word, group, phrase and clause alike – which is the relation of
modifying where one element modifies another paratactically (the elements have equal
status) or hypotactically (between a dependent element and its dominant);
(ii) the logical-semantic system, expansion (with three ways of expanding a clause:
elaborating; extending and enhancing) and projection (a representation of a linguistic
representation by quoting, reporting, projecting), ‘which is specifically an inter-clausal


19
relation’ (Halliday, 1994).
Relative clauses appear together with the relation called hypotactic elaboration. This means
that the relative clause as a dependent clause serves to elaborate the meaning of a part of or
the whole independent clause in a clause complex by specifying or describing it. The
relative clause playing this role often belongs to Non-defining Relative Clauses which
provide interesting additional information which is not essential to understanding the
meaning of the whole complex. To be clearer, they are subordinate clauses giving a
supplementary, optional comment in relation to a part of or the whole of the main clause or
sometimes subsequent information to the previous clause.
e.g. She married the rich old man, which didn’t surprise anyone.
( the marriage didn’t surprise anyone).
The meeting finished late, which didn’t allow me to see you on time.
(The late finishing of the meeting didn’t allow me to see you on time).

In other words, whereas defining relative clauses give a particular subset of the general
class suggested by the central noun to make it specific, non-defining relative clauses give
‘further characterization of something that is taken to be already fully specific’ (Halliday,
1994, p. 227). Moreover, correct punctuation is essential in non-defining relative clauses.
Unlike the defining clause, the non-defining clause is separated from the primary clause by
a comma or sometime by a dash. If the non-defining relative clause occurs in the middle of
the clause complex, a comma is put before the relative pronoun and at the end of the

clause. In that case, the sequence in the clause complex will be α <<=>>β in which α is the
symbol of the primary clause, and β is the symbol of the secondary clause, α = β is the
notation of hypotation. If the non-defining relative clause occurs at the end, a comma is put
before the relative pronoun. In that case the sequence will be α ^ = β. Finite and non-finite
relative clauses both can serve as hypotactic elaborations (Thompson, 1996, p. 202)

1. 3. 3. Finite relative clauses
In ‘An Introduction to Functional Grammar’ (1994) Halliday grouped these clauses into 3
groups:
(i) Clauses with which whose domain is either the whole of the primary clause or some
part of it’s (which is more than a nominal group.). However, the former case is less


20
frequent.
e.g. The city is developing rapidly, which is the result of everybody’s effort.
In the above example, the relative pronoun which denotes the event the city is developing
rapidly.
e.g. I was afraid of him so I tried not to meet him, which made me panicked.
The relative clause above means ‘meeting him made me panicked’.
(ii) Clauses with which (occasionally not that), who, whose which further characterize a
nominal group:
e.g. She hates black cats, which always make her sick.
which in the above instance denotes black cats so the relative clause with which here has
the domain of this nominal group.
(iii) Clauses with when and where give additional information about time or place.
e.g. I’ve been to Uncle Ho’s mausoleum, where Uncle Ho’s body has been
stored very carefully
The additional information in the relative clause above is about Uncle Ho’s mausoleum.
In fact, in some cases, some non-defining relatives can be analyzed rather as belonging to

extension than to elaboration:
e.g. I give it to my sister, who gives it to her daughter. (an additive: who means
‘and she’)
It was bought by a doctor, whose (of whom) voice impressed everybody. (an
additive: the possessives ‘do not further characterize the noun that constitutes their domain
but add a new one related to it’ (Halliday, 1994, p. 229)).
However, ‘for most purposes these all other non-defining relatives can be treated as
elaborating’ (Halliday, 1994, p. 229).
In prepositional non-defining relative clause, it is almost a general rule for the preposition
to come before the relative pronoun:
e.g. The new hospital, in which the Queen has taken a great personal interest,
will be officially opened in March.
The headmaster, with whom the parents had discussed their son’s future, advised
the boy to take up engineering.
One important exception is the verb + preposition combinations mentioned in the section


21
above. e.g. No one puts any faith in the Government’s promises, which they have
frequently gone back on in the past. (Thao, 2007, p. 23)

1. 4. Review of previous researches in the area
Thao, Le Thi Hien (2007) focused on the similarities and differences between relative
clauses in English and in Vietnamese and found out the implications of the study in
teaching and learning English relative clauses through translating them into Vietnamese
and vice versa.

Seely, Daniel & Grondona, Veronica (2006) investigated the sources of difficulty
encountered by Saudi learners when acquiring English relative clauses by anatomizing,
comparing and contrasting relative clauses in both languages in terms of structure, word

order, pronouns, functions and the positions. Firstly, the unmarked word order of Arabic,
VSO, makes it difficult for Saudi learners to relativise English relative clauses whose basic
word order is SVO. Secondly, Arabic relative clauses do not allow the deletion of their
relative pronouns. English relative clauses, on the other hand, allow the deletion of their
relative pronouns functioning as objects because they are optional. This marks the second
difficulty encountered by Saudi learners trying to process the optional flexibility of object
relative pronouns found in English relative clauses. Thirdly, Arabic has no 'that'
complementizer form as English does. This lack of 'that' complementizer form may hinder
Saudi learners from processing English relative clauses having 'that' complementizer. Last
but not least, in contrast to Arabic relative clauses, English relative clauses do not allow
the presence of resumptive pronouns. Arabic relative clauses do have resumptive
pronouns. The presence of incorrect resumptive pronouns in Saudi learners' writing seems
inherent and unavoidable because of their Arabic counterparts.

Newbrook, Mark, Department of Languages City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, discussed the
important features of the standard English relative clauses and made a survey of the most
common errors made by Hong Kong students in using the construction, as follow: a)
Omission of subject relative; b) Omission of an auxiliary verb BE after a subject relative
pronoun; c) Confusion between restrictive and non-restrictive relatives; d) Delayed relative
clause; e) Co-ordination of relative clause with post-modifier of another type; f) Use of