Print

Print


Totally missed that! It also appears to be a standard term. I didn't think
of/remember/know at all about it because it's one that I would for various
reasons avoid as confusing when talking with generative grammar students
(and more generally that people in my generative ling influenced world
don't use so much), but it seems pretty standard, and definitely like
another thing to include as a search term.

B

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:51 PM, J S Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:34:51 -0400, B. R. George <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >This is all complicated by the fact that different theoretical and
> >grammatical traditions use terminology differently, and reflecting
> >different tacit or explicit theoretical assumptions about which kinds of
> >clauses are "the same thing" as which others. For all of these, you might
> >also look at the term "argument clause". In many traditions, these are
> >treated as completely different constructions, including the following:
> >
> >a. [Whoever made that assertion] is wrong.
> >
> >Things like the clause in (a) go by different names in different
> >traditions, but one common term is "free relative clause", "free
> relative".
> >These are sometimes contrasted with "headed relatives" or "headed relative
> >clauses", so you may also encounter "headless relative" or variations
> >thereon used. Similar constructions in some languages are referred to in
> >some grammatical traditions as "subject nominalizations" (if they're like
> >(a)), or "object nominalizations" (if they're like (b)):
> >
> >b. [Whatever assertion Bill made] is wrong.
> >
> >In English, these often work better with the "ever" forms rather than the
> >kinds of "wh" words we use for other relative clauses or for questions,
> but
> >you can find non-"ever" variants in, e.g., (c) and (d):
> >
> >c. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
> >
> >d. I'll have what she's having.
> >
> >e. I know [who said that].
> >
> >Depending on your analysis, and maybe on how you resolve an ambiguity, the
> >clause in (e) is another free relative or an "embedded question" or
> >"embedded interrogative", "indirect question", or "wh complement". Insofar
> >as this is an ambiguity issue, there's only an "embedded question"/"wh
> >complement" reading for a variant like (f):
> >
> >f. I wonder [who said that].
> >
> >Meanwhile, although we discuss them a lot in the linguistics literature,
> >I'm totally blanking on a standard generic term for (g) and (h):
>
> Aren't those called "complement clauses"? (If not, I have to change a few
> dozen web pages!)
>
> >g. I know [that he is here].
> >
> >h. I know [he is here].
> >
> >A little googling suggests that in much of the literature "embedded
> >declarative" or "embedded declarative clause" is used, and I've also seen
> >"indirect statement". Another wikipedia article suggests "content clause"
> >for these and also the "embedded question" type above, with
> "interrogative"
> >or "declarative" added for clarification.
> >
> >The following additional wikipedia articles may be helpful:
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_clause
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_speech
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause#Bound_and_free
> >
> >Cheers,
> >B
> >
> >
> >On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Dustinger Batailleur <
> >[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> While looking through the Wikipedia article on dependent clauses, I
> found a
> >> type in English called a "noun clause" (see
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause#Noun_clause).
> >> Unfortunately,
> >> I can't find anything on similar constructions in other languages. What
> >> might they be called, or, if they don't exist, how do other languages
> >> accomplish similar things (and what is the distribution of methods used
> to
> >> accomplish this)?
> >>
> >> Papers especially appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
>