Relative Clauses

Question

My Japanese coworker came to me with these two relative clause sentences.

"Daigo is a singer who comes from Japan." I think it's a subject relative clause. Am I correct?

"Daigo is a singer who we think is cute." I don't know if this is a subject or object relative clause. The relative pronoun can be dropped so does this mean it's an object relative clause?

Thanks in advance for your help.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Anonymous"Daigo is a singer who comes from Japan." I think it's a subject relative clause. Am I correct?

Correct.

Anonymous"Daigo is a singer who (we think) is cute."

Also a "subject relative clause". "we think" is parenthetical.

AnonymousThe relative pronoun can be dropped so does this mean it's an object relative clause?

No, because you can drop the pronoun in cases that contain this type of parenthetical group.

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJim"Daigo is a singer who (we think) is cute." "we think" is parenthetical.

If we think were parenthetical, then it would be marked as such by punctuation and who would be the subject of the relative clause and therefore not omissible, but in the original sentence we think is tightly integrated into the structure of the clause and who is optional because it is the subject of not the relative clause but a content clause embedded within it.

Daigo is a singer who (we think) is cute. (Who is the subject of the relative clause who is cute, so it can’t be omitted.)
Daigo is a singer who we think __ is cute. (Who is the subject of the content clause __ is cute, so it can be omitted.)

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara GusIf we think were parenthetical, then it would be marked as such by punctuation and who would be the subject of the relative clause and therefore not omissible

OK. Let's suppose that's so, even though you can't hear parentheses when people speak, so I don't see what that's got to do with anything.

Aspara Gus-
Daigo is a singer who we think _ is cute. (Who is the subject of the content clause _ is cute, so it can be omitted.)

So this is supposed to explain why we can have Daigo is a singer we think is cute?

How about Daigo is a singer that we think that is cute? How does that get parsed?

I don't get how just ___ is cute is a content clause.

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimyou can't hear parentheses when people speak, so I don't see what that's got to do with anything.

Daigo is a singer who (we think) is cute.

Well, in speech we think would be set apart from the rest of the clause by a slight pause, and who would not be omitted, just as it wouldn’t be in the sentence above.

CalifJimSo this is supposed to explain why we can have Daigo is a singer we think is cute?

It should suffice. Students are taught that a relative pronoun can’t be omitted when it’s the subject of the relative clause.

CalifJimHow about Daigo is a singer that we think that is cute? How does that get parsed?

It doesn’t: it’s wrong.

CalifJimI don't get how just ___ is cute is a content clause.

…we think __ is cute comes from We think Daigo is cute.

(The gap indicates the functional position of the relative pronoun.)

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara Gus…we think __ is cute comes from We think Daigo is cute. (The gap indicates the functional position of the relative pronoun.)

What happened to the that?

We think that Daigo is cute.
the singer who we think that ___ is cute.

Are you proposing/postulating a transformational rule that demands that-deletion in such structures?

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

Yes.

CalifJim · Answer

So what triggers that-deletion? Just the fact that that is standing before a gap? Or is it more subtle?

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

It’s triggered by the fact that the subject position of the content clause is filled by a gap.

This also happens in interrogatives: Who does she think [__ stole the money]? (Notice that in uninverted She thinks (that) WHO stole the money? that is possible.)

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara Gussubject position ... gap

OK. Got it.

CJ

Relative Clauses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions