Noun clause or Adjective clause

[2006]

Originally Posted by RonBee

Re:

Pete, who is the richest man in town, has been indicted.

The appositive phrase (in bold) undoubtedly refers to Pete.

1...But how do the words in bold differ from a non-restrictive relative clause?
2...Is it universally accepted that "that" clauses following an abstract head noun are appositives and not adjective clauses? And if so, why?
3...Of course more straightforward appositives are the following two examples:
a) My neighbor John is in big trouble.
b) We had a good breakfast, cereal and fruit, before we left.

[RonBee]

But how do the words in bold differ from a non-restrictive relative clause?

They don't.

Is it universally accepted that "that" clauses following an abstract head noun are appositives and not adjective clauses?

I don't know if it is universally accepted (Wouldn't I have to know everybody's opinion to know that?), but in my opinion a "that"clause can be both an appositive and an adjectival clause.

[2006]

Originally Posted by RonBee

They don't.


I don't know if it is universally accepted (Wouldn't I have to know everybody's opinion to know that?), but in my opinion a "that"clause can be both an appositive and an adjectival clause.

I guess the second question was more directed to Soup. (but, of course, anyone else could respond)
"universally" does seem to be a tad strong; 'widely' would have been a much better choice.

[Soup]

Originally Posted by Raen

My sequencial question that's still in dispute is this, in the following sentence, is the who-clause an appositive>

Pet who is the richest man in town has been indicted.

Some argue it's not, but isn't Pet = who is the richest man in town?

Let's test it.

If you replace a noun with its appositive and the resulting structure doesn't render the sentence ungrammatical, either structurally or semantically, then you know you're dealing with an appositive structure (Note, however, that ellipsis (...) plays a key role here):

Appositive
Ex: We (in other words) adults understand more about the world than children.

Replacement
Ex: Adults understand more about the world than children.

Appositive
Ex: We (in other words, those) that are older understand more about the world than children.

Replacement
Ex: Those that are older understand more about the world than children (i.e., those that are younger).

Adjective
Ex: A suitcase (i.e., specifically one) that/which doesn't have handles is useless.

Replacement = Apposition
Ex: One that/which doesn't have handles is useless. The pronoun One lacks a referent, rendering the semantically divergent meaning ?One is useless. That's not the intended meaning.

This goes back to the previously mentioned point that adjectives modify (add meaning), whereas appositives amplify or qualify (replace). Adjectives cannot replace constituents semantically (e.g., One that replaces A suitcase that rendering the semantically divergent ?One is useless), but appositives can replace constituents (e.g., We adults -> Adults). That is why they are called appositives:

apposition: Definition from Answers.com



Apposition (n.)

1. Grammar.
   1. A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence; for example, Copley and the painter in The painter Copley was born in Boston.

Appositive
Ex: A suitcase (i.e., in other words, one) that/which doesn't have handles, is useless.

Ex: One, that/which doesn't have handles, is useless. ?One is useless. It's the handless suitcase **specifically** that is useless, so restriction is needed here, either structurally or semantically.

Appositive
Ex: Pete (in other words, he,) who is the richest man in town, has been indicted.

Replacement
Ex: He, who is the richest man in town, has been indicted.

Adjective
Ex: Pete (specifically, he) who is the richest man in town has been indicted.

Replacement
Ex: He who is the richest man in town has been indicted.

Here, the difference between the adjective reading (i.e., the one without the commas, and the appositive reading (i.e., the one with the commas) is based on meaning. Wh-relatives modify; e.g., insert the phrase "specifically"), whereas Wh-appositives qualify, or replace; e.g., insert the phrase "in other words"). (See also 1.1. a little bit about meaning, below)

With the adjective clause, the assumption is that being the richest man in town is in some way related to being indicted. As you know, with restrictive clauses omitting them changes the meaning of the sentence, which begs the question, why did the author choose to make it restrictive? Paralingistic reasons, no doubt, is the answer here; e.g., emphasis:

Max: Pete has been indicted.
Sam: Unemployed Pete?
Max: Pete who is the richest man in town. <adjectival>
Max: Pete, who is the richest man in town. <apposition>

Reduced appositive:
Pete, he who is the richest man in town, has been indicted.
1a. Pete, who is the richest man in town, has been
indicted.
2a. Pete, the richest man in town, has been indicted.

From adjective to appositive:
1b. Pete who is the richest man in town ... <adjective>
2b. Pete the richest man in town ... <appositive>

Note the similarities between 1a ~ 1b and 2a ~ 2b. In sum, your example sentence can go either way, depending how you argue/view the meaning/punctuation.

_______________________________________

1.1 A little bit about meaning

As the appositive vs. restrictive opposition suggests, there is a difference in the way an appositive relative clause combines with the head (the anchor) and the way a restrictive relative clause does.

(2) a. restrictive relative clause:

the students who are from Sydney like Kylie.
!all the students don’t need to be from Sydney.

(2) b. appositive relative clause:

the students, who are from Sydney, like Kylie.
!all the students are from Sydney.

But such a truth-conditional distinction is not always present:

(3) (from Potts (2005):94-95)
a. restrictive: A plumber that endorses nephrology came by.

b. appositive: A plumber, who endorses nephrology, came by.

Also note that ‘restrictive’ relative clauses do not always involve restriction.

(4) (from Potts (2005):94-95)

a. the positive numbers that aren’t negative

b. the bachelors who are unmarried

For these reasons, Potts (2005) proposes the term supplementary for what we have been calling appositive relatives and integrated for what we have been calling restrictive relatives.

Source The Syntax and Semantics of Nominal Modification: Appositive Relative Clauses

_____________________

Learn more about appositives on pages 211 - 221 here the fact that-structures

[Raen]

Sincere thanks to Soup as well as Ronbee for the discussion on appostives clauses and adejctive clauses. And I see there seems to be variation in classifying the clauses as well as the names.

I have to admitt even after your extensive explanation, I still don't have a clear handle on a seemingly subtle distinction in certain cases such as the last example I presented. But one thing that stands out an obvious point is that to be qualified as an appostive clause is more likely to be preceded by a comma especially when it invovles a who-clause, otherwise it's a restrictive relative clause (I guess this is the term others use for adjective clause which I'm more familiar with), this is also confirmed by another expert on a different forum. I'd like to quote him, but I''m not sure if by doing so that I might committ some infringement on property of wisom (what we call it in Chinese). Here's a websited to which I was directe to concludes that in some cases a sub clause can both be appostive and adjective clauese. But again this is one grammarian's opinion, others might differ.

Thanks again for your help, I couldn't be more grateful.

Raen

[Soup]

Originally Posted by Raen

Thanks again for your help, I couldn't be more grateful.

Raen

You're most welcome, and you're on the right track. Congratulations for sticking with it.