The following is my (kind of) short answer reply to one of the questions on my graduate descriptive grammar exam. The question was:
Is the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses important? Discuss implications for teaching these clauses for oral and written performance.
Relative clauses are finite dependent clauses found in the noun postmodifier position. Their general function is to add information about the noun, as adjectives do, and that may be why some call these forms adjective clauses. Relative clauses can be divided into two distinct functions: restrictive and non-restrictive. Teaching this distinction in an ESL context is important, at perhaps an intermediate level, because it relates to four relative clause rules that affect the clarity of communication.
To begin with, the most obvious difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause in writing is punctuation. Commas, em dashes, and parentheses are all orthographical methods that writers use to mark non-restrictive clauses. Yet restrictive clauses cannot be offset by punctuation. This is logical considering that restrictive clauses are strongly attached to the identity of the head noun. The punctuation considerations are important for learners to understand so that they can properly cue their readers. Second, accompanying the punctuation are intonation and pauses in speech. Just like commas in writing, the rising intonation toward the end of the relative clause and the initial and ending pauses in speech let the listener know that a non-restrictive clause is being communicated, and therefore the information is additional.
Third, as Biber et al. note, “The choice among relative pronouns is influenced by a number of other factors, including … restrictive vs. non-restrictive function.” By rule, the relativizer that cannot be used in a non-restrictive clause. Breaking this rule would result in a mixed message to the interlocutor; is the information necessary to identify the noun (restrictive) or additional information (non-restrictive)? Finally, for the learner to navigate the rules of relative clause reduction, or the zero relativizer, she must understand the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause. Only restrictive clauses can be reduced.
In summary, the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses is not only important for the ESL learner on the semantic level, but the distinction also helps him to properly follow other rules concerning punctuation, intonation and pauses, relativizer choices, and clause reduction.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Leech, G. (2002). Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English.
Is the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses important? Discuss implications for teaching these clauses for oral and written performance.
Relative clauses are finite dependent clauses found in the noun postmodifier position. Their general function is to add information about the noun, as adjectives do, and that may be why some call these forms adjective clauses. Relative clauses can be divided into two distinct functions: restrictive and non-restrictive. Teaching this distinction in an ESL context is important, at perhaps an intermediate level, because it relates to four relative clause rules that affect the clarity of communication.
To begin with, the most obvious difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause in writing is punctuation. Commas, em dashes, and parentheses are all orthographical methods that writers use to mark non-restrictive clauses. Yet restrictive clauses cannot be offset by punctuation. This is logical considering that restrictive clauses are strongly attached to the identity of the head noun. The punctuation considerations are important for learners to understand so that they can properly cue their readers. Second, accompanying the punctuation are intonation and pauses in speech. Just like commas in writing, the rising intonation toward the end of the relative clause and the initial and ending pauses in speech let the listener know that a non-restrictive clause is being communicated, and therefore the information is additional.
Third, as Biber et al. note, “The choice among relative pronouns is influenced by a number of other factors, including … restrictive vs. non-restrictive function.” By rule, the relativizer that cannot be used in a non-restrictive clause. Breaking this rule would result in a mixed message to the interlocutor; is the information necessary to identify the noun (restrictive) or additional information (non-restrictive)? Finally, for the learner to navigate the rules of relative clause reduction, or the zero relativizer, she must understand the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause. Only restrictive clauses can be reduced.
In summary, the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses is not only important for the ESL learner on the semantic level, but the distinction also helps him to properly follow other rules concerning punctuation, intonation and pauses, relativizer choices, and clause reduction.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Leech, G. (2002). Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English.
No comments:
Post a Comment