The puzzling nuanced status of who free relative clauses in English: a follow-up to Patterson and Caponigro (2015)

R. Stockwell; C. Schütze

doi:10.1017/S1360674320000490

The puzzling nuanced status of who free relative clauses in English: a follow-up to Patterson and Caponigro (2015)

R. Stockwell, C. Schütze

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This squib challenges Patterson & Caponigro's (2015, this journal) claim that there are few acceptable free relative clauses with who. We show that free relatives with who are generally acceptable when they are ‘transparent’ free relatives or complements of a copula, and add further nuance to their findings concerning how the degree of acceptability of free relatives with who varies according to positional factors.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	185-202
Number of pages	18
Journal	English Language and Linguistics
Volume	26
Issue number	1
Early online date	9 Feb 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674320000490
Publication status	Published (in print/issue) - 1 Mar 2022

Keywords

standard free relatives
transparent free relatives
degradation of who free relatives
wh-words
copular clauses

Access to Document

10.1017/S1360674320000490

Stockwell_Schutze_2021_The_puzzling_nuancedAuthor Accepted Manuscript, 972 KB

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:dbdf8ae1-0d0f-4787-8b25-b1f87e5e8f9a/download_file?safe_filename=Stockwell_Schutze_2021_The_puzzling_nuanced.pdf&file_format&type_of_work=Journal+article

Cite this

@article{9bd28241fb3543d0bcd39d10cae6de06,

title = "The puzzling nuanced status of who free relative clauses in English: a follow-up to Patterson and Caponigro (2015)",

abstract = "This squib challenges Patterson & Caponigro's (2015, this journal) claim that there are few acceptable free relative clauses with who. We show that free relatives with who are generally acceptable when they are {\textquoteleft}transparent{\textquoteright} free relatives or complements of a copula, and add further nuance to their findings concerning how the degree of acceptability of free relatives with who varies according to positional factors.",

keywords = "standard free relatives, transparent free relatives, degradation of who free relatives, wh-words, copular clauses",

author = "R. Stockwell and C. Sch{\"u}tze",

year = "2022",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1017/S1360674320000490",

language = "English",

volume = "26",

pages = "185--202",

journal = "English Language and Linguistics",

issn = "1360-6743",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The puzzling nuanced status of who free relative clauses in English: a follow-up to Patterson and Caponigro (2015)

AU - Stockwell, R.

AU - Schütze, C.

PY - 2022/3/1

Y1 - 2022/3/1

N2 - This squib challenges Patterson & Caponigro's (2015, this journal) claim that there are few acceptable free relative clauses with who. We show that free relatives with who are generally acceptable when they are ‘transparent’ free relatives or complements of a copula, and add further nuance to their findings concerning how the degree of acceptability of free relatives with who varies according to positional factors.

AB - This squib challenges Patterson & Caponigro's (2015, this journal) claim that there are few acceptable free relative clauses with who. We show that free relatives with who are generally acceptable when they are ‘transparent’ free relatives or complements of a copula, and add further nuance to their findings concerning how the degree of acceptability of free relatives with who varies according to positional factors.

KW - standard free relatives

KW - transparent free relatives

KW - degradation of who free relatives

KW - wh-words

KW - copular clauses

U2 - 10.1017/S1360674320000490

DO - 10.1017/S1360674320000490

M3 - Article

SN - 1360-6743

VL - 26

SP - 185

EP - 202

JO - English Language and Linguistics

JF - English Language and Linguistics

IS - 1

ER -

The puzzling nuanced status of who free relative clauses in English: a follow-up to Patterson and Caponigro (2015)

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this