Non-defining VS. defining relative clauses

Question

Hi, I have been always thankful to all for great help. Today's question is that Is there always a meaning difference between non-defining relative clauses and defining relative clauses?. I know the meaning difference of two sisters who from two sisters, who. However, sometimes I feel like I do not need to differentiate in using "non-defining relative clauses and defining relative clauses"

So, my point is that is there always a meaning difference or not much to tell? Please help me out. Thanks a million in advace.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

There is always a difference; that is why we have the two forms.  Did you have a pair of examples that you thought synonymous?

Hans51 · Answer

The man who is an expert in this field, Tom, will answer the question. The man, who is an expert in this field, Tom, will answer the question. The man, Tom, who is an expert in this field will answer the question.In the end, Tom is an expert in this field, so I think there is no that huge meaning difference among the three. Asia is the largest continent in the world where about 60% of the world's people live. Asia is the largest continent in the world, where about 60% of the world's people live.This is also not that much meaning difference, I think, but some different view of speakers when saying it, I think. So, I just want to know whether there is always a meaning difference which changes a whole context or not.Thanks a lot as usual.

BillJ · Answer

Kwang Hee HanI have been always thankful to all for great help. Today's question is that Is there always a meaning difference between non-defining relative clauses and defining relative clauses?. I know the meaning difference of two sisters who from two sisters, who. However, sometimes I feel like I do not need to differentiate in using "non-defining relative clauses and defining relative clauses"
So, my point is that is there always a meaning difference or not much to tell? Please help me out. Thanks a million in advace.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking whether there is any real difference in meaning between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses when viewed in isolation, rather than as part of the larger constructions containing them.

Let's look at two identical (apart from the punctuation) sentences, one containing a restrictive relative clause and the other a non-restrictive relative clause:

i. Snakes which are poisonous should be avoided. [restrictive]
ii. Snakes, which are poisonous, should be avoided. [non-restrictive]

The underlined relative clauses are identical in shape and the relative word which is interpreted in both as snakes, thus in both cases the meaning is snakes are poisonous. So if that's what you're asking, then yes, they have the same meaning when considered in isolation.

But it's the punctuation (or intonation in speech) that distinguishes the two, and it's often critical, as in those examples. The restrictive relative, with no commas, is functioning as modifier of the noun snakes; the sentence implies that only some snakes are poisonous. The second, set off by commas, is not modifying the noun snakes, but is merely providing additional information about snakes, hence its name non-restrictive (supplementary is actually a better term). It implies that all snakes are poisonous. So there is a considerable difference in meaning when the sentences as a whole are considered.

Is that what you meant?

BillJ

Hans51 · Answer

Thanks and I totally understood your point but what I really want to know is that there is always that huge meaning difference or just small meaning dfference not to need to tell or just different view of speakers? Sorry about taking your time because of this.

BillJ · Answer

Kwang Hee HanAsia is the largest continent in the world where about 60% of the world's people live. Asia is the largest continent in the world, where about 60% of the world's people live.This is also not that much meaning difference, I think, but some different view of speakers when saying it, I think.

OK, let's analyse this "Asia" example exactly as you've written it and you'll see that in fact there is a big (and crucial) difference in meaning between the two sentences:

1. Asia is the largest continent in the world where about 60% of the world's population lives.

This should have a comma after world; by omitting it you're implying that there's more than one "largest continent in the world where about 60% of the world's population lives" which of course is nonsense.

2. Asia is the largest continent in the world, where about 60% of the world's people live.

This is correctly punctuated and easily understood as meaning that Asia is the largest continent in the world, and by way of additional information (that may be of interest), 60% of the world's population happens to live there.

So, the difference is crucial - by omitting the comma in 1. you've made a nonsensical statement, and in 2. you've conveyed the correct meaning.

Of course, most experienced speakers will spot obvious errors like that in 1. and make the appropriate adjustment; but that's not the point. The ability to write and speak crisply without error or ambiguity really is important, especially in certain professions (law being a particularly clear example) where it is a prerequisite.

I hope this clears things up.

Bill

Hans51 · Answer

Thanks for helping me get out of long time trouble!! You are great.

Non-defining VS. defining relative clauses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions