Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T06:24:54.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2007

DOUG ARNOLD
DOUG ARNOLD
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to a ‘radical orphanage’ approach, non-restrictive relative clauses are not part of the syntactic representation of the sentence that contains them. It is an appealing view, and seems to capture some important properties of non-restrictive relative clauses. Focusing mainly on empirical shortcomings, this paper aims to show that the appeal of such approaches is illusory. It also outlines an empirically superior ‘syntactically integrated’ account.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , July 2007 , pp. 271 - 309
Copyright
2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I have benefitted from discussion of these ideas with many people. Special thanks are due to Olivier Bonami, Bob Borsley, Annabel Cormack, Anette Frank, Danièle Godard, Ruth Kempson, Bob Levine, Rudy Loock, Rachel Nordlinger, Kathleen O'Connor, Louisa Sadler, Peter Sells, Henriette de Swart, members of the Syntax Group and the Language and Computation Group at Essex, and participants of the 2004 Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain in Roehampton and the HPSG04 conference in Leuven. Two anonymous-referees also provided careful and insightful comments. Errors and unclarities are still my fault, of course.