RELATIVES and NON-RELATIVES: BEGINNING IN THE MIDDLE

The least complicated of such cases occur in the middle of a clause, and only the second problem is involved. We are talking about that-clauses, which are also called complementizers or (with some clauses headed by WH-words) noun clauses.

As the name suggests, that-clauses also begin with a that, but in such cases it is acting as a "complementizer" rather than a relative pronoun. A complementizer that is used to introduce a complete clause which is functioning as a subject or a complement inside the larger sentence. It can be a complement of verb: I know that you care. It can be the subject of a verb That you care pleases me. When that-clauses occur in the middle of a clause, they are usually complements of an adjective (My aunt, afraid that robbers will break into her house, recently purchases an AK-47) or a noun phrase (The idea that I would come to your party is laughable). Once you remember know that such clauses exist, the only ones which you should have trouble telling from from relative clauses beginning with that are those which are complements of noun phrases.

Here's how to tell the difference:

• The that in a relative clause is part of the clause it stands in front of. Take it away and what's left usually can't stand by itself as a sentence. Take away the that from the girl that danced with me, and danced with me can't be a sentence by itself. Take away the that from the girl that I danced with (a process called that-deletion) and the girl I danced with still makes sense, but I danced with can't be a sentence by itself.

• Another test is that you can substitute who or which for the relative pronoun that-e.g., the girl who danced with me.

• The complementizer that is just there to warn the reader that what follows is a complete clause but not the main clause of the sentence. Take away the that from The belief that dancing is evil used to be widespread, and Dancing is evil is a complete sentence. In most cases, that-deletion can, in fact apply, leaving us, for example, with The belief dancing is evil used to be widespread (That-deletion never applies when a that-clause is the subject of a sentence, since the that is needed to avoid confusion.) And of course, substituting who or which for the complementizer that sounds awful: *The belief which dancing is evil used to be widespread

Say whether the that in the following unpunctuated sentences is a complementizer or a relative pronoun:

RELATIVES and NON-RELATIVES: BACK TO THE BEGINNING

For a change, we can rule out that as a source of confusion. Not even in the various forms of non-Standard English do we find nominal relative clauses beginning with that. If a sentence starts with a that, it is either a complementizer or a demonstrative pronoun. And if a clause starting with that is the direct object of a verb, it is a complement clauses.

But all of the relative pronouns beginning with WH (and the other WH-pronouns, too) can serve at the beginning of nominal (free) relatives, whether as subjects or complements. Sentences with this structure aren't all that common, and simply knowing that they exist will help you recognize them. The only problem at the beginning of sentences is that most of the same pronouns can also serve as interrogative pronouns introducing WH-questions.

So how can we tell the difference between sentences with nominal subjects and sentences which are questions-without cheating and checking the punctuation?

• If who, which or whatever is not the subject of the sentence, questions are signalled by having a modal or tensed auxiliary move in front of the subject, as in Which dog did you pick? If the WH-word is (or is part of) the subject noun phrase of the main verb of the sentence, it is an interrogative, as in Which dog bit you? With sentences as short as our examples, of course, it is obvious that there is only one verb, which means there is only one clause, which means that there is no nominal relative clause.

• If there is more than one verb and the WH-word goes with the verb of its own little clause, then it is a relative pronoun. A famous example is Who steal my purse steals trash. As subjects, nominal relatives tend to sound rather formal.

Do the following sentences have nominal (free) relatives as their subjects?

RELATIVES AND NON-RELATIVES AT THE END: SENTENTIAL RELATIVES

Regular post-modifying relative clauses can, of course, appear at the end of a clause or sentence, as can nominal relatives, and that-clauses. The nominal relatives normally appear as complements of verbs or prepositions, so the only serious problem posed by these possibilities is distinguishing between relative clauses with that which modify noun phrases and that-clauses serving as the complements of nouns; the same principles apply as for such cases occurring earlier in the clause. Unfortunately, English also puts some weird stuff at the end of clauses. One such is the sentential relative clause.

The sentential relative clause is just a relative clause which modifies the entire preceding clause, not just some noun phrase in it. Such clauses often comment on the statement they are attached to, rather like sentence adverbials. They are usually punctuated with a comma or dash in front of them. Because clauses aren't living creatures, these relatives are headed by which rather than who. The usual form is the simple which, as in The lark is on the wing, which is normal for larks. It can also be used in various combination forms: He may yet be elected president, in which case I am moving to Canada or even They lost badly, which result pleased me no end.

There are two good reasons we don't find sentential relative clauses beginning with that. The main one is that they are extra stuff and so can't begin with the restrictive that. Another rationale is to avoid confusion with the demonstrative pronoun that which can appear with very similar sentences: compare She hates me, which bothers me with She hates me; that bothers me.

Say whether the following unpunctuated sentences have sentential relative clauses: