Print

Print


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!
>>