Skip to main content
English Language Learners

Return to Answer

replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

So there seems to be two relative clauses that modify the same antecedent, a man. Is this what the clause denotes?

There is only one relative clause. The element that was relativized was the subject of an embedded content clause. That is:

  • In response to the inquiry of a man(i) [ who(i) she may not have realized [ __(i) was a reporter] ], . . .

Everything that is in italics is the relative clause ("who she . . . a reporter"). Embedded within the relative clause is a content clause ("__(i) was a reporter") whose subject was relativized and moved into prenucleus position of the relative clause (it is the relative pronoun "who" in your example). That is, notice that the gap in the embedded content clause is functioning as the content clause's subject: "he was a reporter."

A recent related post on the topic of relativizing the subject of an embedded content clause: http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/31827/8758https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/31827/8758

There's related info in CGEL: pages 466-7 ("(e) Subject of an embedded content clause"), pages 1046-7 ("3.4 Relativisation of an element within an embedded clause"), pages 1079-94 (which has more good stuff).

NOTE: CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).

So there seems to be two relative clauses that modify the same antecedent, a man. Is this what the clause denotes?

There is only one relative clause. The element that was relativized was the subject of an embedded content clause. That is:

  • In response to the inquiry of a man(i) [ who(i) she may not have realized [ __(i) was a reporter] ], . . .

Everything that is in italics is the relative clause ("who she . . . a reporter"). Embedded within the relative clause is a content clause ("__(i) was a reporter") whose subject was relativized and moved into prenucleus position of the relative clause (it is the relative pronoun "who" in your example). That is, notice that the gap in the embedded content clause is functioning as the content clause's subject: "he was a reporter."

A recent related post on the topic of relativizing the subject of an embedded content clause: http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/31827/8758

There's related info in CGEL: pages 466-7 ("(e) Subject of an embedded content clause"), pages 1046-7 ("3.4 Relativisation of an element within an embedded clause"), pages 1079-94 (which has more good stuff).

NOTE: CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).

So there seems to be two relative clauses that modify the same antecedent, a man. Is this what the clause denotes?

There is only one relative clause. The element that was relativized was the subject of an embedded content clause. That is:

  • In response to the inquiry of a man(i) [ who(i) she may not have realized [ __(i) was a reporter] ], . . .

Everything that is in italics is the relative clause ("who she . . . a reporter"). Embedded within the relative clause is a content clause ("__(i) was a reporter") whose subject was relativized and moved into prenucleus position of the relative clause (it is the relative pronoun "who" in your example). That is, notice that the gap in the embedded content clause is functioning as the content clause's subject: "he was a reporter."

A recent related post on the topic of relativizing the subject of an embedded content clause: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/31827/8758

There's related info in CGEL: pages 466-7 ("(e) Subject of an embedded content clause"), pages 1046-7 ("3.4 Relativisation of an element within an embedded clause"), pages 1079-94 (which has more good stuff).

NOTE: CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).

Source Link
F.E.
F.E.
  • 5k
  • 1
  • 22
  • 40

So there seems to be two relative clauses that modify the same antecedent, a man. Is this what the clause denotes?

There is only one relative clause. The element that was relativized was the subject of an embedded content clause. That is:

  • In response to the inquiry of a man(i) [ who(i) she may not have realized [ __(i) was a reporter] ], . . .

Everything that is in italics is the relative clause ("who she . . . a reporter"). Embedded within the relative clause is a content clause ("__(i) was a reporter") whose subject was relativized and moved into prenucleus position of the relative clause (it is the relative pronoun "who" in your example). That is, notice that the gap in the embedded content clause is functioning as the content clause's subject: "he was a reporter."

A recent related post on the topic of relativizing the subject of an embedded content clause: http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/31827/8758

There's related info in CGEL: pages 466-7 ("(e) Subject of an embedded content clause"), pages 1046-7 ("3.4 Relativisation of an element within an embedded clause"), pages 1079-94 (which has more good stuff).

NOTE: CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).