A Student's Introduction to English Grammar

§2 Integrated vs supplementary relatives 187

Example [i] is ungrammatical because whose requires that we front the whole of

the NP in which it is determiner.

In [9ii] the preposition from is left on its own - the term we use is stranded -

instead of being fronted along with its complement, as in [Sii]. (The relation

between preposition fronting and preposition stranding is discussed in Ch. 7, §5.)

In [9iii] what is fronted is just the pp functioning as complement of answer

instead of the whole NP, as in [Siii].

2 Integrated vs supplementary relatives

The relative clauses considered so far have all been tightly integrated
into the structure of the NP containing them. As such, they contrast with another
kind of relative clause that is more loosely attached. This second kind we call
supplementary relative clauses. These examples illustrate the contrast:

[10] INTEGRATED

ii SUPPLEMENTARY

Politicians who make extravagant promises aren 't trusted.

Politicians, who make extravagant promises, aren 'f trusted.

In this section we look in detail at the differences between integrated and supple­
mentary relatives with respect to three things: (a) intonation and punctuation,
(b) interpretation, and (c) syntax.

(a) Intonation and punctuation

Integrated relatives are integrated intonationally into the larger construction. Sup­
plementary ones are set apart, spoken as a separate intonation unit. In writing, this
difference is reflected in the punctuation, with supplementary relatives generally
marked off by commas (or stronger punctuation, such as dashes or parentheses), as
seen in [lOii]. Punctuation does not provide quite as reliable a criterion as intona­
tion, however, because we do find relatives which are clearly supplementary but are
written without being set apart by punctuation.

(b) Interpretation

The names we have given to the two types of relative clause directly reflect the dif­
ference in meaning.

The information expressed in an integrated relative is presented as an integral

part of the larger message.

The information expressed in a supplementary relative is presented as supple­

mentary to that expressed in the rest of the sentence: it is additional, often paren­

thetical, material.

The examples in [10] iJIustrate an important special case of this difference.

In [i] the relative clause serves to restrict the denotation of the head noun politi­

cians (i.e. the set of people to whom the term applies): the lack of trust doesn't