All families have difficult relatives, and English is no exception. The big problem with post-modifying relative clauses is keeping track of whether they are restrictive or non-restrictive, because the way we punctuate depends on this distinction. A restrictive relative clause is needed to "restrict" or specify exactly which example of the noun phrase is being talked about. A non-restrictive relative clause adds information but it is extra stuff, not really needed to make it clear who or what is being talked about, and so it gets sets off by punctuation, usually commas, as in sentence (1). Restrictive relative clauses, as in sentence (2), are not set off by punctuation.
Sentence (1) assumes that we already know what man is being talked about--hence the definite article the. That he has blue eyes is just an additional piece of information, possibly relevant to the judgment that he is handsome. Sentence (2) assumes that we have been talking about more than one man and that we are singling out the one with blue eyes for favorable comment.
(1) The man, who has blue eyes, is very handsome..(2) The man who has blue eyes is very handsome.
When you are setting off any sentence element, you want punctuation both before and after, usually the same punctuation-at the end of a sentence a non-restrictive post-modifying relative clause can make do with a period after it, and there are some other exceptions. If you put a comma at the end of a relative clause, though, always put one in front of the relative pronoun. This is another case where punctuating by one's breathing can be misleading. After a long relative clause, even a restrictive one, one can feel like a breath, but never punctuate a sentence like this:
(3) The man who has been following me around lately, is at least very handsome.
Exercise 1: Restrictive vs. Non RestrictiveFor each of the following unpunctuated sentences, say whether the relative clause is (A) restrictive or (B) non-restrictive. Punctuate accordingly.
|
The distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive applies to other forms of post-modifiers as well, particularly to noun phrases:
(1) My brother Bill laughed.(2) My brother, Bill, laughed.(3) My brother who is a doctor laughed.(4) My brother, who is a doctor, laughed.(5) Bill, who is a doctor, laughed.
You would always use sentence (1) above if you have more than one brother and want to specify which. Sentence (2) implies that you have only one brother but want to remind the listener or reader what your brother's name is. Since we are dealing here with a short name, you could also use (1) in this situation to avoid junking up your prose with commas. Used properly, sentence (3) has a restrictive relative clause implying that you have more than one brother, with only one brother being a doctor. Sentence (4) implies either that you have only one brother or that your reader already knows which brother is being talked about. Unless there were, say, a whole room full of people named "Bill," relative clauses modifying names, like (5) above, are always non-restrictive.
More on That. The restrictive/non-restrictive distinction is a serious sticking point for some students. One clue is the use of that, which can only be properly used in restrictive relative clauses. One also hears occasionally that one should not use which with restrictive relative clauses. This is another one of those handbook rules with little basis in Standard English practice. In truth, which can be used interchangeably with that to introduce restrictive relatives.
Exercise 2: More Restrictive vs. Non RestrictiveThis distinction causes a lot of people trouble. It's time for another exercise. Say which of the following unpunctuated sentences have restrictive relative clauses:
|
|
How Much of This Will be on the Test? You can expect to be tested ad nauseum on recognizing restrictive vs. non-restrictive relative clauses, and some testing on recognizing in errors in punctuating them. |