relative & post-modifying clauses
GME | Simon Mumford | May 11th, 2002
One thing that confuses me is the difference between reduced relatives and post modifying clauses. For example:
'Research carried out in the rural areas around Kenya has revealed some interesting facts.'
Is this a reduced relative meaning 'Research which was carried out...' or is 'carried out in the rural areas around Kenya...' a post modifier? Is this an embedded, or hypotactic clause relationship? Any answers gratefully received.
GE: Reply to Simon | James Hobbs | May 12th, 2002
Thanks for your comments.
Anyway, let me have a stab at your question.
I think it's both:
1. At the rank of group it's a postmodifier in the nominal group "research carried out in the rural areas around Kenya". (and in SFPCA terms, the whole thing is S)
2. At the same time, at the rank of clause it's a reduced relative that is embedded in the main clause, i.e.
"Research [[carried out in the rural areas around Kenya]] has revealed some interesting facts."
It answers the question "Which research?"
Is this an embedded, or hypotactic clause relationship?
It's an embedded clause; specifically, it's a non-finite relative clause that has been rankshifted to function as a postmodifier in a nominal group.
However, if the sentence had been, "The research, carried out in the rural areas around Kenya, has revealed some interesting facts," then "carried out in the rural areas around Kenya" would no longer be embedded, and would be in hypotactic relation to the main clause. It would no longer be answering the question "Which research", but instead would just be telling us something more about the research, i.e. it would be a reduced non-defining relative clause which is an expansion of the dominant clause "The research...........has revealed interesting facts."
Hope this helps (and hope it's correct!).
PS: Yesterday, I went through old list postings and printed out some 30 pages of old GE exchanges involving Pinkie, Colin, Suzanne, Tom, and others. When they were first posted I didn't have the faintest idea what everybody was all talking about with "alpha", "beta", "embedded clauses", and all the rest. But having finished reading the module it all makes perfect sense to me now, and I got a lot out of those posts, so I'm really glad that I saved them all. Just something to bear in mind if you're reading this thinking "What the hell are non-finite relative clauses, reduced relatives, and all these other things?"
GE | Simon Mumford | May 13th, 2002
Thanks for that answer. Now it's clear. I think its more satisfying looking for clause complexes in ones own reading, trouble is there's no answer key!
How about this one: '...manufacturing was still too weak to withstand the rise in borrowing..' my understanding is that 'to withstand the rise in borrowing' is a dependant non-finite clause (expansion?). Does everyone agree?
Re: GE (reply to Simon) | Colin Graham | May 20th, 2002
Hi Simon, James and other ICPs (interested course participants)
As far as it goes, I would agree with your analysis.
Why the doubt about expansion?
I would state it a different way by saying that it is a hypotactic expansion by enhancement; that the enhancement is causal-conditional, and that it is cause:purpose achieved through a non-finite clause joined by preposition rather than conjunction. (Halliday p 237 and thereabouts - if you're completely lost or haven't read that far!).
GE | James Hobbs | May 19th, 2002
Simon: as nobody has said otherwise, your analysis must have been right!