Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English, which is not an easy thing

Language Sciences

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 651-677

  Tao, Hongyin ^a   McCarthy, Michael J ^b,c  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c NONE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Corpus; English relative clauses; Spoken discourse; Subordination

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345776973     PISSN: 03880001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00026-7     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Blanche-Benvensite, C., 1982. Examen de la notion de subordination. Recherche sur le français parlé 4, 71-115.
2. Borsley, R., 1992. More on the difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 28, 139-148.
3. Carter, R., McCarthy, M.J., 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16 (2), 141-158.
4. Chafe, W., 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In: Tomlin, R. (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 21-51.
5. Chafe, W., 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
6. Chafe, W., DuBois, J., Thompson, S., 1991. Towards a corpus of spoken American English. In: Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B. (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. Longman, London.
7. Cornilescu, A., 1981. Non-restrictive relative clauses: an essay in semantic description. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 26 (1), 41-67.
8. Depraetere, I., 1995. Factors requiring, promoting and excluding the use of a (non-)restrictive relative clause. Leuvense Bijdragen 83 (4), 433-458.
9. Depraetere, I., 1996. Foregrounding in English relative clauses. Linguistics 34 (4 (344)), 699-731.
10. Du Bois, J.W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Paolino, D., 1993. Outline of discourse transciption. In: Edwards, J., Lampert, M. (Eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Discourse Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-89.
11. Eastwood, J., 1994. Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
12. Emonds, J., 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 211-243.
13. Fabb, N., 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26, 57-77.
14. Ford, C., 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Fox, B.A., Thompson, S.A., 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66 (2), 297-316.
16. Goodwin, C., 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In: Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington, New York.
17. Goodwin, C., 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York.
18. Goodwin, M.H., 1990. He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization Among Black Children. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.
19. Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M.H., 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1), 1-54.
20. Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M.H., 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In: Goodwin, C., Duranti, A. (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 147-190.
21. Grannis, O., 1978. Some semantic aspects of relative clauses in English. In: Nehls, D. (Ed.), Studies in Descriptive Linguistics. Julius Groos Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 25-32.
22. Grice, H.P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9. Academic Press, New York, pp. 41-58.
23. Halliday, M.A.K., 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17 (3), 241-292.
24. Halliday, M.A.K., 1991. Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In: Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B. (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics. Longman, London, pp. 30-43.
25. Halliday, M.A.K., 1992. Language as system and language as instance: the corpus as a theoretical construct. In: Svartvik, J. (Ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 61-77.
26. Hopper, P.J., Thompson, S.A., 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60 (4), 703-752.
27. Itkonen, E., 1980. Qualitative vs. quantitative analysis in linguistics. In: Perry, T. (Ed.), Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 334-366.
28. Jefferson, G.H., Sacks, Schegloff, E., 1978. Notes on laughter in pursuit of intimacy. In: Schenkein, J. (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press, New York.
29. Jespersen, J.O., 1909. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. II. C. Winter, Heidelberg.
30. Langacker, R.W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
31. Lerner, G., 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20, 441-458.
32. Lerner, G., 1996. On the 'semi-permeable' character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., Thompson, S. (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 238-276.
33. McCarthy, M.J., 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
34. McDavid, V., 1977. Which in relative clauses. American Speech 52 (1/2), 76-83.
35. Nesbitt, C., Plum, G., 1988. Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: the clause complex in English. In: Fawcett, R., Young, D. (Eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Applications, vol. 2. Pinter, London, pp. 6-38.
36. Ono, T., Thompson, S.A., 1995. What can conversation tell us about syntax?. In: Davis, P. (Ed.), Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 213-271.
37. Pomerantz, A., 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-101.
38. Schegloff, E.A., 1981. Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of 'uh huh' and other things that come between sentences. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 71-93.
39. Schegloff, E.A., 1996. Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., Thompson, S. (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 52-133.
40. Schelppegrell, M., 1992. Subordination and linguistic complexity. Discourse Processes 15 (1), 117-131.
41. Schuetze-Coburn, S., 1992. Prosodic phrase as a prototype. Proceedings of the IRCS Workshop on Prosody in Natural Speech. Institute for Cognitive Research Report, 92-37. University of Pennsylvania, August 1992
42. Swan, M., 1995. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
43. Tannen, D., 1987. Repetition in conversation: toward a poetics of talk. Language 63 (3), 574-605.
44. Tao, H., 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
45. Thompson, S.A., Mulac, A., 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 65, 237-251.
46. Thorne, J., 1988. Non-restrictive relative clauses. In: Duncan-Rose, C., Vennemann, T. (Eds.), On Language: Rhetorica, Phonologica, Syntactica. Routledge, London, pp. 424-436.
47. Yamashita, J., 1994. An analysis of relative clauses in the Lancaster/IBM spoken English corpus. English Studies 75 (1), 73-84.
48. Ziv, Y., 1973. Why can't appositives be extraposed? Papers in Linguistics 6, 243-254.
49. Ziv, Y., Cole, P., 1974. Relative extraposition and the scope of definite descriptions in Hebrew and English. Papers from the tenth regional meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society. 10, 772-787