Defining/non-defining clause

Question

Hi there,Can anybody explain the author's distinction of 'defining' in the following sentences? Note that the sentences are not situated in any context - there supposed to be no reader's prior knowledge of either 'the singer' or 'the plans for tax reform'.1.The singer, who was recovering from flu, had to cancel her concert. (considered non-defining by the author)2. The minister talked about the plans for tax reform that he will reveal next month. (considered defining by the author)Why is the singer who had to cancel her concert is 'more definite' than the plans for tax reform which will be revealed next month?Thanks for your comments.

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

Paul EvdokimovWhy is the singer who had to cancel her concert is 'more definite' than the plans for tax reform which will be revealed next month?

It isn't.

In the first of your sentences, 'the' defines the singer - she has presumably been mentioned before. The relative clause, within commas (which function almost as brackets), tells us a little more about her.

In the second sentence, the relative clause defines the particular plans that are to be revealed.

Your sentence about the singer that I quoted at the beginning of this post is different from the original. There being no commas, the relative clause defines the singer referred to.

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

fivejedjonIt isn't.

I thus conclude that both the subject of the first sentence and the object of the second should be treated equally in terms of the type of the corresponding relative clauses.

fivejedjonIn the first of your sentences, 'the' defines the singer - she has presumably been mentioned before.

No she hasn't. Let me reiterate that 'the sentences are not situated in any context'. They are merely the suggested answers to the 'rewrite' exercise (the original task below). Is it defining or non-defining?

fivejedjonIn the second sentence, the relative clause defines the particular plans that are to be revealed.

So is it defining or non-defining?

fivejedjonYour sentence about the singer that I quoted at the beginning of this post is different from the original.

I don't get you. I thought I was 100% precise in my quotation.

fivejedjonThere being no commas, the relative clause defines the singer referred to.

Yeah, we've come to the nitty-gritty of my question - given there's no context, what made the author treat the first relative clause as non-defining whereas the second one as defining?

Fivejedjon · Answer

Paul EvdokimovLet me reiterate that 'the sentences are not situated in any context'. They are merely the suggested answers to the 'rewrite' exercise (the original task below). Is it defining or non-defining?

That sentence cannot exist without context. If t is just arbitrarily placed as a test exercise, then we must assume the context. The relative clause within commas is non-defining.

Paul EvdokimovSo is it defining or non-defining?

I said that it defines the plans. It is therefore defining.

Paul EvdokimovI don't get you. I thought I was 100% precise in my quotation.

In your original sentence, the relative cause we enclosed within commas. The second time you used the words there were no commas. The commas are very significant when we are talking about defining and non-defining relative clauses.

Paul Evdokimov, what made the author treat the first relative clause as non-defining whereas the second one as defining?

In the first one the writer had already defined 'singer. In the second, the writer wished to define 'plans'.

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

fivejedjonIn the first one the writer had already defined 'singer. In the second, the writer wished to define 'plans'.

fivejedjonThat sentence cannot exist without context. If t is just arbitrarily placed as a test exercise, then we must assume the context.

fivejedjon, we've never come so close to the point!

Think of a student looking at the task and 'assuming' the context.

Is there anything in the sentences that will prompt him/her to treat 'recovering from flu' as solely non-defining in sentense 1 and 'he wil reveal next month' as defining in sentense 2?

It's not obvious to me that 'the writer had already defined 'singer', nor that the writer had not defined 'plans' - what helped you come to this conclusion?

(Let's skip the commas issue when referencing - I'm quite aware of the difference. I kept the original punctuation when I was quoting the complete sentences.)

Fivejedjon · Answer

If you skip the commas, that's the end of the conversation.

CalifJim · Answer

Paul Evdokimovwhat made the author treat the first relative clause as non-defining whereas the second one as defining?

The clues given in parentheses.

The first one is a toss-up. Is it the singer who has flu as opposed to another singer who doesn't have flu? If so, it's defining. The singer who was recovering from flu had to cancel her concert. (The other singer did not cancel her concert.)
Is the information about the flu simply extra information about this singer? If so, it's non-defining. The singer, who was recovering from flu, had to cancel her concert.
The author of the exercise probably thought it was unrealistic for the student to postulate the existence of another singer who did not cancel another concert, so the non-defining clause seemed the more logical to him or her.

In the second case, I doubt strongly that it makes sense to ask if the plans in question are those the minister will reveal next month as opposed to some other plans that, perhaps, he will not reveal next month. It's those plans he will reveal. There are no other plans. It's defining. The minister talked about the plans for tax reform [that / which] he will reveal next month. I think if it had been 'his' instead of 'the', you could get a non-defining clause out of that: The minister talked about his plans for tax reform, which he will reveal next month. It doesn't convince me, but I suppose it's theoretically possible.

CJ

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

CJ, thanks. That's exactly what I was getting at and asking about. I wonder why the author who considers 'that' to be an acceptable relative pronoun in non-defining relative clauses (see below)

restricted the number of correct options for these two sentences?!

Talking about the second sentence, the plans for tax reform contrast with any other 'ordinary' plans that every person - any minister included - surely has. I've never had any plans for tax reforms, nor has almost any mortal. They are unique by definition as opposed to 'ordinary' plans, not relevant to tax reforms.

It's far less likely to imagine a minister with a few plans for tax reforms: the one he'll reveal next month, the one he'll take to the grave, etc. than to assume that 'the plans for tax reform' are specific...

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

fivejedjonIf you skip the commas, that's the end of the conversation.

fivejedjon, don't get so easily offended, please. I'm just trying to stick to the point, which is not my punctuation but the author's.

CalifJim · Answer

Paul Evdokimov I wonder why the author who considers 'that' to be an acceptable relative pronoun in non-defining relative clauses (see below)

I don't believe he really thinks that. It's just that the book isn't as good as it could be. Some of the presentation seems inept. It requires a live teacher to point out the flaws in the presentation and steer the student onto the right track.

CJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

I am not at all offended, but one of the defining (!) features of relative clauses in writing is commas. You can't just ignore them.

Defining/non-defining clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions