Talk:Restrictiveness

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

This should probably be rewritten from a more modern grammatical perspective, and use the terms "integrated relative clause" and "supplementary clause" more than "restrictive" and "non-restrictive".

Note that the difference between "which" and "that" in integrated relative (restrictive) clauses is specific to the modern US American dialect of English. They're equivalent in the corpus of English literature as well as in modern journalism in Britain and (largely) Canada.

- toh 21:54, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

... and even in the USA, most people do not follow that convention. I think it was proposed by Fowler in his famous book, and he was British. Michael Hardy 22:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm moving the info in the last paragraph to English relative clauses and American and British English differences but agree this whole article needs re-writing. I'm also changing the category to encourage writers to be more general! Gailtb 15:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we have a discussion about the need for including English-specific info here? The title does not include the word English, which means the article should be about the general concept of restrictiveness in grammar. I think English examples are useful to explain the concept to an English speaker, but the details of English usage need to be in an article about English grammar. If you think differently, please explain the reasons. Gailtb 22:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle and for that reason I could imagine moving the last paragraph to English relative clauses. But the rest is quite good. It is important that we give the variety of different terminology, and explain why the different terms have their own validity. And one English example of each kind, restrictive and non-restrictive is necessary; after all, this is the English Wiki, so English is the one language we can assume readers can work with. Perhaps the examples could be simpler, though. Too many unnecessary dogs at the moment! --Doric Loon 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These pages about grammar are very good, and I refer English learners to them. But often too much jargon is used in explaining concepts. For example, the second paragraph starts out talking about marking modifiers without explaining what marking is. I don't know what it is, so I cannot edit it. It would be helpful to keep in mind when editing that nonexperts are reading these pages. Bruvensky (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the misinformation added concerning intonation, can someone explain to me why so much general information on English clauses is being added here. We agreed (above) to put all that elsewhere. --Doric Loon 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point about about the role of intonation in ditingusihing restrictive and non-restrictive clauses in speech has been accepted. The entry on restrictive clauses needs to be simply and clearly written because it concerns a matter which people who are not linguists need to understand in order to write correctly. PeterBowing 10:42, 8 February 2006

Sure, this article should be clear to non-specialists, and some of the recent changes have helped a lot there. But the point is, the full story of English relative clauses, including the restrictiveness rules, has an article on its own. This article was supposed to be about the concept of restrictiveness itself, not just in English. It has now been moved (without consultation on the talk page, which is an absolute no-no!) to a new title which fundamentally changes that. And new material has been added which duplicates what is in the other article. I think this is a move in the wrong direction. --Doric Loon 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just re-read your last comment. No, I quite disagree. The purpose of this article is NOT to give instructions on "correct" usage. This is not the place for prescriptive grammar. (I am not one of those who see prescription as invariably demonic - it has its place. But the job of an encyclopedia article on grammar is to be descriptive.) And I repeat, the idea of making this article JUST about English seems wrong to me. I would like to move it back. If you really feel we need a separate article on restrictiveness in English (in addition to what we already have at English relative clauses) then you are welcome to create one, but not by hijacking the main article. --Doric Loon 12:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ This is very wrong. Grammar in the encyclopedia should only be about English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.56 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The addition in the heading (i.e. in English) seemed to me an improvement on having this restriction pointed out at the end of the article because, by the time anybody got there, they would have already worked that out. But whether (in English) is contained in the title or not is of little importance

I am no fan of prescriptive grammar either. It’s rather like prescribing the length of a piece of string. Yet I know most inquiries into this entry will be by people interested in wanting to understand the distinction for the purpose of using commas ‘correctly’. By all means add further technical information, so long as the non-specialist can get the key points from the article.

Basically I think the article is now fine.--PeterBowing 12:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the underlying problem here — the one that's resulted in the English/non-English problem discussed above — is that "restrictive clause" is a mostly English-specific concept. German and Japanese don't have this concept; a clause's restrictiveness is not explicitly marked. Hebrew barely does; the Hebrew Academy endorses English-style usage (which draws the distinction), but most speakers use the German style (which doesn't). Spanish doesn't, either; a clause's restrictiveness is explicitly marked, but so is any adjective's (albeit not the same way). French doesn't completely; a clause's restrictiveness is a factor in certain markings (commas, intonation), but not the only factor.

Unless someone can present evidence that in the languages of the world, there's a greater tendency to mark clauses for restrictiveness than other adjectives, I think this page should be moved to Restrictiveness, and then non-English information can be added more naturally.

Ruakh 18:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days, and no one's commented . . . am I to take that as agreement, or at least as lack of objection? I'll wait another day or two before making the move, in case anyone suddenly objects. Ruakh 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ruakh, I read and agreed silently, but that didn't help you much. Go ahead. --Doric Loon 10:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I have exactly the opposite opinion. This is not about grammar but about semantics, so it crosses language boundaries. How the semantic difference is represented in language is something else. I gather that the use of comma's (or rather the omission) of a comma both in English and Dutch (my native language) identifies a restrictive clause, but as far as a I know there is no way to express the difference for adjectives in these languages. I would be very curious how languages make the difference that do not follow the above "comma convention". Sometimes the meaning is obvious fro mthe context. If I refer to "the brilliant scholars of Harvard University", I don't mean to contrast the with the stupid scholars from that university. But there are cases where the difference is not as obvious. Rbakels (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone comment more on this aspect of restrictiveness and non-restrictiveness in Spanish. It doens't make much sense to me yet. I don't think it's true that there is a one-to-one correspondance between restrictiveness and adjectives-preceding-nouns and non-restrictiveness and adjectives-following-nouns as is claimed in this article. In both sentences Tengo el libro grande Tengo el primer libro it seems to me that the speaker most likely communicates restrictives, regardless of the relative position of adjective and noun. And if speaker and listening both know I have just one teacher, Ella es mi maestra and Ella es la maestra mia both seem to refer to this, regardless of the position of noun and adjective, although the former certainly sounds much more neutral in style and emphasis to me (a non-native speaker). Interlingua ^{talk email}

You're right that there's not a one-to-one correspondence, but for the vast majority of adjectives, they follow their noun if they're restrictive and precede it if they're not. I suppose the article could do with a more nuanced explanation. (As for your specific examples: "primero" is indeed an exception, as it's always restrictive and always precedes its noun; and "mi" is not an exception, as it's not an adjective, but a determiner.) Ruakh 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "mía" is totally restrictive in your example, as it's needed to distinguish her from teachers that aren't yours. Ruakh 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but could you give more examples of adjectives which meet two conditions: they can have two positions, before and after nouns and 2) the difference in position communicates the difference betwen restrictive and non-restrictive, respectively. How about "Tengo mi libro viejo" and "Tengo mi viejo libro"? I think that the difference here isn't one of restrictive vs. non-restrictive but of emphasis, with the latter giving focus to the age of the book. I think that sometimes the use of nominal-precedent adjectives can communicate restrictiveness, but still am not convinved that it is usually (or productively) used this way. Is there any citation to a text (in English or Spanish) which explains the relative position of noun and adjective as a productive feature of the language? Interlingua ^{talk email} 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any normal adjective satisfies both those conditions. I think you're mistaken in your claim that the difference between "tengo mi libro viejo" and "tengo mi viejo libro" is one of emphasis rather than restrictiveness: the latter does tend to emphasize the age of the book, but only because it's non-restrictive, hence saying something that's not necessary except for the purpose of emphasizing it.

In response to your request for a "citation to a text", I've put a quote from En otras palabras: Perfeccionamiento del español por medio de traducción, by Patricia V. Lunn and Ernest J. Lunsford (ISBN 0-87840-133-4), pp. 30–31, at Talk:Restrictiveness/En otras palabras.

Ruakh 04:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you can get ahold of it, Gramática para la composición by M. Stanley Whitley and Luis González (ISBN 0-87840-778-2), gives a much longer, much more thorough explanation on pp. 206–207. Ruakh 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been reading this article for a couple of months, so I suppose it is my own fault that things have happened which I don't like. But I am puzzled to see that the terminology section has been removed and only a small portion of the information from it is now noted. Going back to february this year, the article had a terminology section which read as follows:

A number of different terms may be used. Most linguists speak of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, but textbooks for non-specialists are more likely to refer to defining and non-defining relative clauses. Others again speak of integrated clauses and supplementary clauses, or of identifying and non-identifying relative clauses. Or the non-restrictive clause may be called a descriptive clause. Foreign learners of English are sometimes taught to call them necessary and unnecessary clauses, but this is easily misunderstood, as the information in an "unnecessary" clause may be necessary on other levels of importance.

The variant terminology was then applied and made clear in the next section where an example of a restrictive clause was given:

The relative clause serves to disambiguate; it defines the antecedent, restricts its reference, and is thus integrated into the basic idea of the main clause and is necessary if the main clause is to have its intended meaning.

And then in the next section there was an example of a non-restrictive clause, commented as follows:

This sentence is non-restrictive: which was born yesterday provides additional, supplementary information, almost as an afterthought. It does not define the antecedent, because the question of identity is already resolved, there being only one Dalmatian puppy, but it may describe the antecedent.

In this way, the variety of terminology and the reasons for it was made clear. Why was this deleted? Doric Loon 09:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my doing, as part of the edits I made on March 21 when I moved the article from its old title (Restrictive clause); the overall diff of these edits is available here. It's asking a lot to expect me to remember why I did something more than six months ago, but I assume my reasoning was that the varying terminology, and the explanations therewith, seemed to pertain primarily to restrictiveness in English relative clauses, and not to restrictiveness as a general property of modifiers that different languages can mark (or not mark) in different ways on different modifiers.

If you feel that the information should be restored, then by all means, do restore it, but I think it would need to be generalized so it's appropriate to the article as a whole (and not specific to English relative clauses). Or, if it is to remain specific to English relative clauses, then I think it should be shortened significantly and moved to the "Restrictiveness in English" section, with a full version at English relative clauses.

Ruakh 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I see what you were doing, and overall that was a good edit. You are quite right about the pro-English bias. I will think about it again. --Doric Loon 09:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about this line: "Note that many grammarians insist that which would be incorrect in the former example." (Regarding the use of "which" in a restrictive clause).

Is there any recognized grammar guide that actually says it is correct? Everything I have read states that it is not correct. Unless there is a source for it, I think it should be left out, or at least have the phrasing reversed--instead of saying "many grammarians insist that which would be incorrect" say something like "some grammarians (cite) argue that which could also be used in the former example."

Has this been discussed before?--Margareta 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists (scientists who study language, including descriptive grammarians, i.e. linguists who study grammar) all agree that which can introduce a restrictive clause. This is because linguists believe that a prohibition must have some basis in the actual language that is used, which the prohibition against restrictive which doesn't really: it's not like if you go back far enough, you'll find a time when people naturally distinguished which and that in this way. Some prescriptivist grammarians (educators who tell people how to write) have decided that which shouldn't be used to introduce restrictive relative clauses; this is a relative recent innovation, only going back to Fowler (see http://bartelby.com/116/205.html to see what he wrote), and Fowler makes quite clear that he's making up the rule. What's more, Fowler mentions a number of exceptions to his rule (where that is preferred in a non-restrictive context or which in a restrictive one), which modern prescriptivists typically ignore. (Conversely, modern prescriptivists typically do not recommend that as the human restrictive relative pronoun, which Fowler did.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I'm having is that, in every style and grammatical guide I have looked at (in the U.S.), it has said that "which" is incorrect in a restrictive clause. Usually, the guide goes on to state that this distinction is commonly ignored in Britain. So wouldn't it be more correct to say something more along those lines on the page? After all, if people are reading a page on restrictive clauses, they presumably want to find out what the rules are. Saying a rule doesn't exist because its commonly ignored isn't helpful in that case. Also, if someone's bothering to look up restrictive clauses, they probably want to improve the clarity of their writing, and respecting the distinction between the two terms is very helpful in improving clarity. The phrase "some grammarians insist" makes it sound like there is no consensus, when in fact, if you refer only to the published works in common use, there is (at least in the U.S.) I have yet to find any published source that says the two are interchangable.--Margareta 22:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no deep insight into this, but in Japan, it is taught that "which" can introduce a restrictive clause. English taught in Japan is intended to be American English (per guidelines from the Ministry of Education, which also screens all textbooks). In my own (American) education I do not remember being taught a rule pertaining to this consistently. Dekimasu 22:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some guides you haven't looked at, then: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English; The American Heritage Book of English Usage. —Ruakh_TALK 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain what erroneous contribution was in my information? --Dwspig2 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for asking.

As I see it, the main problem with your contribution was that it didn't pertain specifically to the stated topic of this article (restrictiveness). Your contribution dealt primarily with other things, such as the nature of relative clauses, and your belief that people confuse which with the coordinating conjunctions. Indeed, so tangential was restrictiveness to your contribution that when it did, at last, restrictiveness, it marked it with the word "furthermore" ("Furthermore, which is nonrestrictive.").

As for those parts of your contribution that did pertain to restrictiveness, there were a number of inaccuracies, which I'll attempt to address as follows:

• "[…] which is nonrestrictive.": It does not make sense to describe a relative pronoun as restrictive or not; rather, the pronoun introduces a clause that is restrictive or not. So, I assume that what was intended here was actually, "Furthermore, which introduces nonrestrictive relative clauses."
• "[…] which is nonrestrictive.": Here and later, your contribution implied that which introduced only nonrestrictive clauses. In fact, which very often introduces restrictive clauses (though it is true that that very rarely introduces non-restrictive ones).
• "[…] which must be set off with commas.": When it introduces a non-restrictive clause, it is true that the clause must be set off by commas; which alone, however, rarely is.
• "[…] which is nonrestrictive. In other words, which must be set off with commas.": That is not what nonrestrictive means. (Your contribution later suggested, in parenthetical notes, that restrictiveness might mean something besides the presence of commas, but never said so explicitly.)
• "If the writer does not wish to use a comma, the relative pronoun that must be used instead of which.": This was misleading in one respect (suggesting that the presence of commas, rather than semantic restrictiveness, is the defining factor), and erroneous in another (suggesting that which must not be used in restrictive clauses, when indeed which often introduces relative clauses).
• Your example describes restrictiveness in terms of the importance of the information conveyed. This is not accurate; a restrictive clause is no more important than the sentence that contains it ("This boring slide shows a girl that I met and said hi to."), and a non-restrictive clause can be very important ("Allow me to give you this painting, which Van Gogh painted for his lover and which is worth $7m U.S."). A more accurate description would focus on the relationship between a restrictive or non-restrictive clause to its matrix clause.

Once the irrelevant text was removed and all these inaccuracies were fixed, it seemed that your contribution added little or no information that wasn't already in the article, certainly not enough to warrant an entire section separate from the "Restrictiveness in English" section.

(You may wish to seek another article where your contribution will be more relevant.)

—Ruakh_TALK 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need an example of Spanish adjectives, preferably two sentences containing the same adjective, one in a restritive and oné in a non-restrictive context. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]