3

H. W. Fowler established a terminology (I do not know if it originates with him), where clauses that are related to another clause through a pronoun are called relative clauses; he further drew a distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses to explain his famous rule about when to apply that vs. which.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language rejects this terminology in favour of another terminology:

  • Instead of restrictive relative clause, the CGEL prefers integrated relative clause;
  • Instead of non-restrictive relative clause, the CGEL (always?, usually?) prefers supplementary relative clause.

Why does the CGEL, reflecting the preference in Anglistics, follow this alternative terminology?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

The authors themselves say of the traditional terms:

They are misleading: the integrated relative is NOT always restrictive, in the sense of picking out a subset of the set denoted by the head noun.

They go on to give supporting examples. However, if you’re familiar with the CGEL, you probably already know this.

Improve this answer
3
  • I've no current access to the CGEL, so thank you for looking this up. Would you know if all non-restrictive rel. clauses are supplementary?
    – Charles Stewart
    Mar 13, 2012 at 18:35
  • @CharlesStewart: It would seem so. I have only the stripped down version, 'A Student's Introduction to English Grammar'. That's why I began my answer with 'The authors . . .'
    – Barrie England
    Mar 13, 2012 at 18:52
  • Ah, indeed thanks, I had forgotten about the existence of that book. It is a bit cheaper than the full CGEL.
    – Charles Stewart
    Mar 13, 2012 at 21:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.