[Grammar] Defining and Non-Defining Relative Clauses

[Andromeda]

Dear teachers,

I came across the following two sentences in a grammar book:

1. Twenty demonstrators were arrested, some of whom the police subsequently charged.
2. Lawyers have been hired to represent the demonstrators some of whom the police subsequently charged.

The author of the grammar said sentence 1 is a non-defining relative clause, and sentence 2 is a defining relative clause. Adding on, he said sentence 2 is not grammatical. All he said was, such a construction is not possible in defining relative clause.

Could someone tell me why sentence 2 is not correct?

Thank you.

 

[Rover_KE]

Please repost without trying to change the default colour.

 

[Andromeda]

So sorry about that.


I have edited it as I could not delete the post.


Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

Sentence 2 needs a comma after "demonstrators".

Note that I have edited post #1 so that the text is in the default font size. Please stick to that format in future posts.

 

[jutfrank]

Sentence 2 needs a comma after "demonstrators".

That would render a different meaning.

The point here (I think) is that lawyers were hired to represent all of those who were charged. If that is so, sentence 2 should read:

Lawyers have been hired to represent those demonstrators whom the police (subsequently) charged.

Could someone tell me why sentence 2 is not correct?

Are you asking what is wrong with sentence 2?

Is your profile information correct, Andromeda?

 

[Andromeda]

Thank you, Piscean.

Are you referring to "the demonstrators" when you said "part of what that noun phrase denotes"?

 

[Andromeda]

That would render a different meaning.

The point here (I think) is that lawyers were hired to represent all of those who were charged. If that is so, sentence 2 should read:

Lawyers have been hired to represent those demonstrators whom the police (subsequently) charged.

They represent all of them; however, only some of them have been charged,

Are you asking what is wrong with sentence 2?

Yes.

Is your profile information correct, Andromeda?

Yes.

 

[jutfrank]

They represent all of them; however, only some of them have been charged,

Are you sure? How do you know? Why would those who were not charged need legal representation?

If your interpretation is correct, then adding a comma would be a way to fix the sentence. Note though that that would make it non-restrictive. I really don't think that's what the author means. I think he/she is trying to show how you can't use a restrictive relative clause such as sentence 2.

By the way, please tell us which book this example is from, and make sure to do that in all future posts. Thanks.

 

[Andromeda]

Are you sure? How do you know? Why would those who were not charged need legal representation?

That is what I have made of the sentence: That the "lawyers have been hired to represent the demonstrators. Some of whom have, however, been charged." [Lawyers can be hired even for those who have not been charged.]

Note though that that would make it non-restrictive. I really don't think that's what the author means. I think he/she is trying to show how you can't use a restrictive relative clause such as sentence 2.

The author said that it is a restrictive relative clause.

By the way, please tell us which book this example is from, and make sure to do that in all future posts. Thanks.

The title of the book is "Relative Clauses: Structure and Variation in Everyday English" by Andrew Radford. It is a Cambridge Studies in Linguistics edition. The ISBN is 978-1-108-72968-0.