Martha has a son, who lives in Russia

[keannu]

Many grammar books emphsize the difference between descriptive usage and consecutive usage of relative pronoun, but I wonder if native speakers actually perceive them differently. In the following, if the relative pronoun is a consecutive usage, does it really mean "she has only one son?" I doubt it.

Q)Choose the matching one for the following - Answer : a.
ex)Martha has a son, who lives in Russia.
a.Martha has only one son
b.Martha may have more than one son.

 

[5jj]

1. Martha has a son, who lives in Russia.
2 Martha has a son who lives in Russia.

In #1, the implication is that Martha has only one son.
In #2, she may, or may not, have more than one son.

 

[keannu]

1. Martha has a son, who lives in Russia.
2 Martha has a son who lives in Russia.

In #1, the implication is that Martha has only one son.
In #2, she may, or may not, have more than one son.

I always tell my students that native speakers seem to perceive even a descripted sentece in a sequential order. What I mean is, they think "Martha has a son" first, and then "who lives in Russia" later as the two are almost like two seperate sentences.When you think of "who" in this sentence, don't you think "who" is like the person(he, she,etc)? Don't you think "he or she lives in Russia" separately? I'd like to know how "who" and the the whole descripted part are perceived by native speakers.

ex)Martha has a son who lives in Russia

 

[5jj]

I told you in my last post how I, a native speaker of BrE, interpret those two sentences. In #2, I do not see 'Martha has a son' and 'who lives in Russia' as separate entities. What Martha has is a son-who-lives-in-Russia.

 

[emsr2d2]

This is how I perceive them:

Martha has a son, who lives in Russia = Martha has a son. He lives in Russia. (I would infer that she only has one son. She may have daughters as well, but probably no other sons.)

Martha has a son who lives in Russia = I have no idea how many children she has in total. The only thing I can be certain about is that she has at least one child, who is male, and who lives in Russia.

 

[keannu]

I told you in my last post how I, a native speaker of BrE, interpret those two sentences. In #2, I do not see 'Martha has a son' and 'who lives in Russia' as separate entities. What Martha has is a son-who-lives-in-Russia.

I didn't mean that. I didn't contradict what you said for the both. It's hard to explain as it's the difference between English and Korean. I'm just asking the perception of relative pronoun of "who, which" by native speakers.

Korean : Martha has a "Russia at living" son.
English : Martha has a son who lives in Russia

Korean has a different word order, so however long the descriptive part is, we always place it before a noun it's related to, so whenever we see a reversed order in English, we wonder how it can describe so well from backward. I think native speakers have the perception from backward that describes or limits the previous word. But with comma in writing, they seem not to think of it as description, but a consecutive flow.
My really serious question is how you perceive "who", as who is originally an interrogative, but do you perceive it as "he or she or they" a pronoun or what else or meaningless?

 

[Raymott]

My really serious question is how you perceive "who", as who is originally an interrogative, but do you perceive it as "he or she or they" a pronoun or what else or meaningless?

Who is saying that "who" is originally interrogative? That is one of its functions, but no native speaker would think even for moment that this might be an interrogative, because they have extensive experience of it also being a relative pronoun.
I perceive these two sentences differently, and in the same way as the others have mentioned.

 

[DeanGray]

I'm a Japanese-language student, and I don't possess any tertiary qualifications ( my apologies if the following comment is naive )...Is " Martha has a son, who lives in Russia " a response to a question ? ( i.e. " does Martha have ANY children ? " ) In my opinion, many native speakers would say " Martha has a son that lives in Russia " though this response is also ambiguous because Martha may have had another child or children that are deceased..." Martha has a son, who lives in Russia " is obviously an example of colloquial speech ( using imperfect grammar ) that requires face-to-face communication, knowledge of context, speech tone and body language in order to be comprehended. It may have been said thus " Martha has A son, who lives in Russia "...with " A " being pronounced " ay " ( meaning 1 ) :-D

 

[Barb_D]

Martha has a son, who lives in Russia " is obviously an example of colloquial speech ( using imperfect grammar ) that requires face-to-face communication, knowledge of context, speech tone and body language in order to be comprehended.

Why do you think this is imperfect grammar? What makes it colloquial?

I certainly agree that an awful lot of what we say requires context and often requries tone, but I don't see what you see here.

 

[konungursvia]

Here's a thread where the experts and teachers are being as patient as can be, yet the learners seem stubbornly unwilling to hear them.

 

[5jj]

Here's a thread where the experts and teachers are being as patient as can be, yet the learners seem stubbornly unwilling to hear them.

Would that it were the only such thread.

 

[SoothingDave]

I am skeptical that many natives deduce from "My brother John" and "My brother, John" whether the speaker has other brothers.

But the examples given in this thread are unambiguous to me.

 

[konungursvia]

Many grammar books emphsize the difference between descriptive usage and consecutive usage of relative pronoun, but I wonder if native speakers actually perceive them differently.

Do you honestly think grammar books would invent language phenomena the speakers of the language are unable to fathom or even notice?

 

[DeanGray]

I'm not particularly interested in being a " keyboard-warrior " and mentioned that I wasn't purporting to be an authority. In my understanding and how it applies to my language study, I meant " colloquial " as :- informal, everyday, conversational speech that does not strictly adhere to set forms. Without any inference of incorrect / vulgar usage. Also, I thought that " Martha's son, who lives in Russia " was correct, instead of " Martha has a son, who lives in Russia " hence my " incorrect grammar " comment...Currently I'm not studying Japanese literature or the language in it's finer forms. I am learning to construct colloquial Japanese / Nihongo ( with it's aversion to over-flowery speech ) memorizing both kana alphabet ( about 50 % memorized at the moment ) increasing vocabulary and learning proper pronunciation. This forum caught my eye because I'm considering enrolling in an ESL course. Thanks for your comment.

 

[Barb_D]

I'm sorry, I'm still not following, Dean.

This is not an attempt to start any sort of argument. I'm honestly interested in hearing why you think the sentence is colloquial. If you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine, but especially if you're thinking of teaching English, it might be something you want to explore further.

 

[DeanGray]

I was under the impression it was colloquial because I thought that it was informal, everyday conversational speech ( that sometimes contains less than perfect grammar ). If it isn't colloquial then so be it, I stand corrected. If you'd like to tell me,I'd be happy to hear about where I was mistaken, otherwise I shall research it.

 

[5jj]

I was under the impression it was colloquial because I thought that it was informal, everyday conversational speech ( that sometimes contains less than perfect grammar ). If it isn't colloquial then so be it, I stand corrected. If you'd like to tell me,I'd be happy to hear about where I was mistaken, otherwise I shall research it.

Your mistake here is in considering that .." Martha has a son, who lives in Russia " is informal/colloquial and that the grammar is less than perfect.

 

[DeanGray]

You said "I'm honestly interested in hearing why you think the sentence is colloquial." so, I told you why I thought it was.Therefore ditto, I'm honestly interested in hearing why you think the sentence isn't colloquial. I may not belong to the local branch of M.E.N.S.A., but I don't think " you made a mistake in assuming that it was colloquial....... " qualifies as an explanation.

 

[5jj]

I'm honestly interested in hearing why you think the sentence isn't colloquial. I may not belong to the local branch of[STRIKE] M.E.N.S.A[/STRIKE] Mensa, but I don't think " you made a mistake in assuming that it was colloquial....... " qualifies as an explanation.

I did not claim that it was an explanation. There is no need to explain why a perfectly normal non-defining relative clause, acceptable in the most formal of writing, is not colloquial.

You will find relative clauses dealt with in any grammar of English. Some writers may consider the omission of the relative pronoun in defining clauses 'informal', particularly if the clause ends in a preposition. Some may regret the gradual disappearance of objective 'whom'. None that I know of considers a properly-formed non-defining relative clause to be colloquial, because it isn't.

 

[birdeen's call]

Off topic.

DeanGray, when you are using parentheses or quotation marks, please do it as follows

(that sometimes contains less than perfect grammar)

"colloquial"


without spaces between the parentheses/quotation marks and the text. It is the usual way of doing this and people used to it will find your texts easier to read if you adhere to the rule. The rule itself is not picked arbitrarily. It prevents text editors from separating the punctuation marks and the text when they have to start a new line.