Thank you all for sharing your valuable opinions on this analysis! Sorry that I took some time to think about possible analyses and explanations. It seems that there is no grammar book that can thoroughly explain this sentence. So far there have been three different kinds of analyses that can be taken into consideration for discussion. But before that let’s not forget the original sentence in the news report.
"European officials reacted with surprise and anger after US President Donald Trump imposed a trans-Atlantic travel ban they fear will wound economies already reeling from the coronavirus pandemic."
(1) At first, I was not sure, after reading the definition of “parenthetical expression”, whether I should call “they fear” the parenthetical expression. The term is so close to what I expected “they fear” to be, so I tentatively used it then. The reason why I thought of “they fear” as “parenthetical expression” is that “they fear” is to some degree redundant because the main subject and its predicate have already expressed their attitude (
European Officials reacted with surprise and anger…, which may imply “they’re afraid that the ban will wound the economies”). It doesn’t semantically affect the sentence but merely grammatically, as I mentioned in my analysis (“they fear” grammatically turns the subject relative pronoun into omissible object relative pronoun, simply because “they fear” is inserted right after the relative pronoun). Note that the contributing factor of the omission here (the embedded clause permits the omission) is different from that in
(2) (
“they fear” is the subject and verb of the relative clause). If the definition of parenthetical expression doesn’t justify my analysis, then I think the writer just wrongly omitted the relative pronoun “
which/that”.
(2) I know some may say that (a) the relative pronoun is the subject in the
that-clause (as...
they fear that which/that will wound economies…), (b) the conjunction
that is omitted, (c) “which/that” is moved to the position where it attaches itself to the antecedent “
… ban”, and (d) “which/that” is omitted because it is the object of the verb “
fear”. But how about the verb “
… will wound”? Some may say that the subject is “which/that” and it is just moved to the front. For that, I want to ask: is there any rule to illustrate the movement of “which/that”? I understand the movement semantically, but it doesn’t make any syntactical sense to me. Besides, I don’t think that Huddleston and Pullum (2002), as Phaedrus introduced (Thanks!), provided explanation for this linguistic phenomenon; they only pointed out that there is a sentence written like this and left the sentence open for discussion (see p.1047 of
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for
subject vs. embedded subject). Please correct me if I misinterpret the content.
(3) Some mentioned “subject contact relative”. Please click the
link for it. Some English experts consider it vernacular because it is not grammatically correct.
I have to say that I am not a fan of digging into grammar, but I just want to make sure I will be able to give a convincing explanation in the future when I’m asked about the similar sentence. Anyway, I’m looking forward to further discussion.
(I don't know what a 'pushdown' relative clause is. Could you explain?)
Hi, jutfrank
It is originally called “pushdown elements” in
A comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Quirk et. al. (1985). I am not sure if “pushdown” relative clause exists, but it is like “embedded” relative clause, as a netizen provided an example discussed In GMAT textbooks:
(1) The passage conveys two points that critics believe result from watching television.
S/he suggested that the sentence can be interpreted as the combination of two sentences:
(2) The passage conveys two points that result from watching television.
(3) Critics believe that two points result from watching television.
The embedded clause
critics believe in (1) is used for semantically “hedging” as a way to express speaker's propositional attitude. In addition, the omission of "critics believe" won't change the meaning of the sentence. According to “pushdown elements”, "two points" in (2) is the antecedent for the relative pronoun, while that in (3) becomes the subject of the that-clause, the reason of which is that the embedded clause “…critics believe…” is
pushed down to make “two points” an antecedent.
But still that doesn’t answer the question of why subject relative pronoun is omitted. Perhaps, as you said, the embedded/pushdown relative clause permits the omission.
I am not sure that I totally agree that it's wrongly omitted.
Let's take a simpler example:
1a. That's the election (which/that) will stick in our minds.
That sentence is clearly wrong with the relative omitted, though you'll hear things like it in some dialects.
1b. That's the election (which/that) I think will stick in our minds.
Logically,omission of the relative in 1b is equally incorrect. but it sounds OK to me.
Strange.
Hi, Piscean
It reminds me that some students of English second language learners tended to say "where are you come from?" in speaking class. It's understandable in conversation but not grammatically acceptable.
Are you sure that "they fear" is a parenthetical expression in your sentence?
I think that it would be in a sentence such as "Some students they fear do not study hard." A parenthetical expression is defined by most traditional grammars as an independent expression that is "wedged" into a sentence and does not affect the grammar of the sentence. So it can always be left out from a grammatical point of view.
But as you have correctly pointed out, "they fear" does affect the grammar of your sentence and cannot be left out: "He imposed a ban that they fear will wound economies." That has a meaning that is different from "He imposed a ban that will wound economies."
Hi, TheParser
No, I'm not sure. I doubted it and used the word "tentatively" accordingly.
I know that I am being audacious, but I think that one of my favorite books has made an error. It gives this sentence (which I have abbreviated): "Our club will sponsor any student whom we know to be capable." It, like you, claims that "we know" to be parenthetical. But if you leave it out, the sentence is ungrammatical: "Our club will sponsor any student whom to be capable." "Whom" is clearly the object of "know." -- Pence & Emery, A Grammar of Present-Day English (1947), page 405.
Right... that's true. Perhaps "parenthetical expression" was not thoroughly defined then?
I agree with TheParser that "they fear" is not a parenthetical expression in the relative clause. As I analyze the sentence, the subject of the relative clause is "they," and its verb is "fear," which is complemented by its own clause. It is that embedded clause, the clause complementing "fear," that the omitted "which" comes from. It is the subject of that embedded clause. Compare: They fear that the trans-Atlantic travel ban will wound economies.
Hi, Phaedrus
In that case, what does the omitted object relative pronoun represent? If "they fear" is the subject and verb of the relative clause, the omitted "which" should be the object relative pronoun of the whole
that-clause rather than "a trans-Atlantic travel ban". Alternatively, is it syntactically allowed to have the movement of the subject of
that-clause to the front?
In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston and Pullum, 2002), it is explained that a relative pronoun that functions as the subject of a complement clause that is embedded within a larger relative clause can be omitted: "We need . . . to distinguish between relativisation of the relative clause subject and relativisation of an embedded clause subject" (p. 1047).
They give the following examples to illustrate the point. What I have represented as (i) appears as a subscripted i in CGEL. It indicates coreference.
[40] i a. This car is safe.
[40] i b. I want a car(i) [that __(i) is safe].
[40] ii a. I know [this car is safe].
[40] ii b. I want a car(i) [that I know [__(i) is safe]].
[41] i *I want a car(i) [__ is safe]. [gap as subject of relative clause]
[41] ii I want a car(i) [I know [__(i) is safe]]. [gap as subject of embedded clause]
Thanks for introducing this book! I read this section but didn't find their explanations for these sentences. I assume for a moment that the most persuasive explanation for the omission of relative pronoun functioning as the subject of the complement clause is the vernacular.
Thank you all again for sharing your opinions!