VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
 TRỊNH ĐÌNH LAN
Semantic and syntactic problems in using relative clauses
in English of Yendinh high school students

(Những vấn đề về ngữ nghĩa và cú pháp trong sử dụng mệnh đề quan hệ
Tiếng Anh của học sinh trường Yên Định)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Hanoi, 2011


Hanoi, 2011 iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION page i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
I. 1. Rationale 1
I. 2. Objectives of the study 1
I. 3. Research Question 1
I. 4. Scope of the study 1
I. 5. Significance of the study 2
I. 6. Methodology 2
I. 7. Organization of the study 2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
1. 1. Overview of relative clauses 4
1. 2. Syntactic features of relative clauses 4
1. 2. 1. Components of relative clauses 4
1. 2. 2. Types of relative clauses 5
1. 2. 2. 1. Finite relative clauses 5
1. 2. 2. 1. 1. The uses of relativizers 6
1. 2. 2. 1. 2. Relative clauses with adverbial gaps 12
1. 2. 3. Positions of relative clauses 14
1. 3. Semantic features of relative clauses 16
1. 3. 1. Restrictive relative clauses 16

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION

This part introduces the rationale, objectives of the study, research question, scope of the
study, significance of the study, methodology. Also, organization of the study is outlined.

I. 1. Rationale
As we know, English has now become the most popular language in the world. In
Vietnam, it has been more appreciated especially after the country joined WTO. Children
learn the language even from kindergarten school. More importantly, English has been
influenced on our education curriculum as a compulsory subject. After years teaching
English at a high school in Yendinh, I find that many students are experiencing a lot of
difficulties when learning English in common and learning to use relative clauses in
particular. They often make many mistakes in building sentences containing relative
clauses such as, wrong use of relativizers, repetition of the noun/pronoun in the relative
clauses, wrong position of the relative clauses, confusion between restrictive and non-
restrictive relatives, lack of relative pronouns, lack of subject-verb agreement, etc.

I. 2. Objectives of the study
The study aims to find out semantic and syntactic problems of Yendinh high school
students’ in using relative clauses in English in order that teachers can help them improve
their English.

I. 3. Research Question
In this paper, the following question would be addressed:
What problems in using English relative clauses in terms of semantics and syntactics do
high school students often have?

clauses.

I. 6. Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative method was applied for this thesis. A written test was used as
data collection instrument. Data collection was administered to 40 high school students to
get information for the study.

I. 7. Organization of the study
This paper is divided into three parts:
Part A: Introduction includes rationale, objectives, research question, scope of the study,
significance of the study, methodology, organization of the study are presented. 3
Part B: Development consists of two chapters:
Chapter 1 provides theoretical background.
Chapter 2 is the study. It includes methodology and outlines the study design, participants,
data collection instruments, data collection, analytical framework, and data analysis
Part C: Conclusion offers major findings, implications, limitations and suggestions for
further study


‘adjective clauses' because, like many adjectives, they often describe and help to identify
the person or thing being talked about. (Yule, 1998, p. 240)
Relative clauses in the following sections are explored not only with syntactic features but
also semantic feature.

1. 2. Syntactic features of relative clauses
In this section, the components of relative clauses and their possible positions of relative
clauses are discussed first, after that is types of relative clauses which are classified
according to their internal structures.

1. 2. 1. Components of relative clauses
A relative clause is a group of words (relativizer, subject and verb) that comes after a noun
and modifies and/or restrict that noun, which is called the antecedent noun. The relative
clause gets embedded in the main clause of the sentence; it becomes a subordinate clause
within the main clause.
Note how the second sentences below are turned into relative clause and embedded in the
sentences. (A = antecedents noun; R = relativizer; S = subject; V = verb) 5
The person was Bob Geldof.
- He was responsible for the concert.
The person who was responsible for the concert was Bob Geldof.
A R/S V
It was a program.
- Geldof is not likely to forget the program.
It was a program that Geldof is not likely to forget.
A R S V
When discussing relative clauses, we will focus on three key components: the head noun,
the relativizer, and the gap. The head noun is the noun modified by the relative clause. The

In Standard English, relative clauses can be formed using eight different relativizers:
which, who, whom, whose, that, where, when and why. The following are examples:
1. The lowest pressure ratio which will give an acceptable performance is always
chosen. (Biber et al, 1999, p. 608)
2. The man who robbed you has been arrested.
3. The man whom I saw told me to come back today.
4. The film is about a spy whose wife betrays him.
5. Well, that's the only way that this can be assessed. (Biber et al, 1999, p. 608)
6. I could lead you to the shop where I bought it.
7. That is the period when he lived here.
8. That is the reason why he spoke.
(Quirk, 1987, p. 380)
In addition, the relativizer can be omitted with many relative clauses (referred to as the
zero relativizer). For example:
The next thing she knows, she is talking to Danny.
To some extent the choice of relativizers is determined grammatically by the role of the
gap in the relative clause. Thus, the pronoun ‘whom’ and the zero relativizer (with rare
exceptions) are used only with non-subject gaps; the pronoun ‘whose’ is used only with
possessive/genitive gaps; and the relative adverbs: ‘where, when and why’ are used only
with adverbial gaps. However, the choice among relativizers is influenced by a number of
additional factors. These other factors include: register, restrictive vs. non-restrictive
function, and animate (human) vs. non-animate head noun. In addition, non-dialects
include other relativizers, which are briefly covered in the following sections:
There is considerable dialect variation in the range of relativizers used in conversation. For
example, the form ‘as’ is sometimes used as a relativizer, as in:
Well, I know one person as'11 eat it.
The wh-word ‘what’ is somewhat more common as a relativizer in Br.English
conversational texts, although it is much rarer than the standard forms: who, which, and
that. Here are some examples:
And you see that truck what just went by.

pronouns ‘that and which’ usually occur with inanimate head nouns, but in certain
circumstances they can also occur with animate head nouns. But this difference means that
‘that, which’ are more common than ‘who’ in most registers, since inanimate head nouns
taking a relative clause are generally more common than animate head with a relative
clause. In conversation and fiction, animate differences are most commonly made with
either a personal pronoun or a proper name, which rarely allow modification with a relative 8
clause. In academic prose, there are relatively few animate references at all. However, the
communicative focus of news, with its emphasis on human, result in a more frequent use
of relative clauses with the pronoun ‘who’. For example, a 20-year-old woman who has
been missing for a week… (news).

Finally, the register distribution of ‘which vs. that vs. the zero relativizer’ also reflects the
stylistic associations of these forms. The relative pronouns beginning with the letter 'wh'
are often considered to be more literate and appropriate to careful language.
The pronoun 'that' and 'the zero relativizer' have a more colloquial flavor and are preferred
in conversation (Biber et al, 1999)

 Who versus which, that and zero
The relative pronoun 'who' is distinctive in that it is used almost exclusively with an
animate (human) head noun.
The relative pronoun 'who' occurs almost exclusively with human heads and in the written
registers, there is a very strong tendency for a relative clause with human head noun to use
'who' rather than 'which' or 'that':
Team Millar rider, Mc. William, who is still looking for a 500 Grand Prix finish,
had a constructive finish.
At the other extreme, the relative pronoun 'which' rarely occurs with an animate head.
Although 'which' is attested in conversation as a relative pronoun with animate heads, this

'whom', and possibly to avoid making a choice between 'who, and whom':
There may be people that we do not know of.
She took up with the first boy that she came near to liking.
However, with non-subject gaps it is much more common to completely avoid the choice
among the relative pronouns by omitting the relativizers altogether. Interestingly, this
alternative is the preferred choice in both written and spoken registers:
You are one person I can talk to.
For the most part, ‘that’ and ‘zero relativizer’ are alternative to 'whom' only with restrictive
relative clauses; non-restrictive clauses with animate head nouns and non-subject gaps
almost always take 'whom':
This man, whom Elethia never saw, opened a locally famous restaurant.

 Which versus that.
The relativizers 'which and that' are similar in their grammatical potential. They are both
grammatical with a wide range of gap positions and with animate or in-animate heads.
However, the preceding sections have identified a number of important differences in their 10
actual patterns of use.
With animate heads, 'which' is rare, while 'that' is more common, especially in
conversation. A more important difference is that 'which' commonly occurs with non-
restrictive relative clauses, depending on the register. In contrast, 'that' rarely occurs with
non-restrictive clauses. When 'that' does mark a non-restrictive clause, it often occurs in a
series of post-modifiers and is used for special stylistic effects (especially in fiction):
1. Here one may say to those sliding lights, those fumbling airs, that breath and
bend over the bed itself here you can neither touch nor destroy.(fiction)
2. He gazed at the yellow, stained wall with all the spots which dead bugs, that had
once crawled, had left. (fiction) (Biber et al, 1999, p. 615)
The American English preference for that over which reflects a willingness to use a form

head noun and some other noun phrases, with the two together comprising the gap in the
relative clause :
The friend whose dog I'm looking after is in Australia. (Eastwood, 1994, p. 636)
Thus, the underlining meaning of the relative clause in this case, with the gap included, is
I'm looking after the friend's dog.
By extension, ‘whose’ can be used to mark possessive relations with collective entities,
such as corporations, government agencies, clubs, societies, and committee:
A shipping group, whose profits dived last year by near a third, has told
shareholders to expect an even lower result for 1993.

In fact, 'whose' can further used to mark other genitive relationships with completely
inanimate, sometimes abstract, head nouns:
This is a way of proceeding in conceptual matters whose method is to define away
any inconvenient difficulty.
An alternative to 'whose' with inanimate head nouns is phrase 'of-which':
We have an antique table, the top of which has jade inlay, (cf Whose top has jade
inlay). (Afar, 1989, p. 255)
An alternative way of introducing a relative clause with 'of-which' is to front only the
prepositional phrase 'of-which', leaving the rest of the noun phrase to follow it in its normal
position in the relative clause:
He joined a dining club of which the motto was, the whole, the good, and the
beautiful.

Finally, a genitive relation can also be marked by using a post-modifying prepositional
phrase with the preposition ‘with’
12
 The zero relativizer

The time that I began (fict). 13
A place I would like to go (conversation).
The day that he left (conversation).
The way I look at it (conversation).

Finally, relative clauses function as adverbs that specifically mark adverbial gaps: (1)
‘where’ for place adverbials, (2)’when’ for time adverbials, and (3) 'why’ for reason
adverbials. These forms do not need to occur with a preposition, since they substitute for
an entire adverbial (while the other relativizer substitutes only for a noun phrase):
1) Although relative adverb ‘where’ occurs commonly in four registers with adverbial
gaps, the registers use different head nouns with relative clauses of this type. In
conversation, fiction and news, these head nouns typically refer to physical locations:
The building where he lives is very old. (Afar, 1989, p. 243)
This association is strongest in fiction:
The place where the savages had vanished (fict).
In academic prose, in contrast, relative clauses with ‘where’ are typically used to mark
logical rather than physical locations:
The kind of situation where this type of work is helpful
The points where further inquiry needs to be made
This pattern holds even with the head noun ‘area’, which has a literal meaning referring to
a physical location but is often used to refer to a knowledge domain:
Farmers are slow to see management as an area where the training could help.
(acad).
2) The relative adverb 'when' is much less common than 'where' overall, although it does
frequently occur with the head noun ‘time’ in all four registers:
I cannot think of a time when I would be going by myself.
It occurred at a time when abolitionist leaders hope for improved treatment of

the zero relativizer:
That's the reason he cannot go. You see. (Eastwood, 1994, p. 636)

1. 2. 3. Positions of relative clauses
Generally, we can use relative clauses to give further information about something or
someone when we mention them in some sentence. A relative clause is put immediately
after the noun or the nominal group which refers to the person, thing or group being talked
about.
The man who came into the room was small and slender. (Thao, 2007, p. 11)
Opposite is St. Paul’s Church, where you can hear some lovely music.
Sometimes, a relative clause can be found after the following pronouns: indefinite 15
pronouns such as someone, anyone, and everything. It is sometimes used after some, many,
much, several, all, and those.
e.g. This is something that I’m very proud of.
Karen Blixen was being feted by everyone who knew her work
Like many who met him in those days I was soon charmed.
…the feelings of those who have suffered from the effects of crime.
In written English, a relative clause (with which as relative pronoun) can be used after the
primary clause (separated with the primary clause by a comma) to say something about the
whole situation described the primary clause, rather than about someone or something
mentioned in it.
e.g. Minute computers need only minute amounts of power, which means that
they will run on small batteries.
I never met Brando again, which was a pity. (Thao, 2007, p. 11)
When a relative clause is connected to a main clause, it can be placed in medial position
(i.e. in the middle) or in final position (i.e. at the end) of the main clause.
The relative clauses in the following sentences are in medial position. Notice that the

Restrictive relative clauses are also called 'defining' relative clauses because they define or
restrict the reference of the antecedent noun. They help to identify or classify the person or
thing being talked about (Thao, 2007).

1. Although in practical situations, nominal groups as well as relative clauses are not often
used separately but in combination with other language elements to form larger units, I
decided to examine relative clauses not in clauses but in nominal.
It should be more convenient to look through all nominal groups’ constituents. In
Hallidayan grammar, the nominal group can include such constituents as Thing, Classifier,
Epithet, Qualifier, Numerative, and Deictic when we look at its experiential structure.
These terms carry the senses of semantic relations, not those of syntactic ones. Thing
names class of items in the real world. As the semantic core of the nominal group, it may
be a common noun, a proper noun, or a pronoun. Classifiers are those elements that
surround a thing to indicate particular subclasses of the class represented by the thing. It is
very usual that several classifiers cluster around a thing to indicate subclasses of more
concreteness. A classifier can be an adjective, a participle, or a noun. It is theoretically said
that the combination ‘Classifier’
Thing’ is enough to name all issues acceptably. Epithets don’t create any new acceptable
meaning but inform a characteristic of the referred class/subclass as additional information
helping the converser to refer to a group of more particular items of a subclass. Therefore,
they are adjectives. Like epithets, Qualifiers inform characteristics of the referred in the 17
form of post-positioned elements, whose main types are relative clauses, appositive clauses
or prepositional phrases. In other words, Qualifiers can play the same role as adjectives in
nominal groups. Deictics all share the meaning of ‘pointing’, i.e. indicating whether or not
some specific subsets of the thing are meant. They fulfill the function demonstratively (as
the, this, that, these, those do), possessively (by possessives and genitives as my, your, his,
one’s, Mary’s…) or interrogatively ((as what (ever), which (ever), whose (ever)…).

Do you know the woman talking to Tom? 18
The boy injured in the accident was taken to the hospital.
In a relative clause of this kind (both finite and non-finite), usually, the information
provided is crucial in understanding the meaning of the noun it follows. For example, in
the sentence: The house is being renovated, it is not necessarily clear which house is being
renovated because there is no defining information. In other words, the purpose of the
relative clause here is to clearly define who or what we are talking about. Without this
information, it would be difficult to know who or what is meant. This kind of relative
clauses is called defining relative clauses (Thao, 2007).
e.g. The boy who ran away was Peter’s son.
The relative clause who ran away answers the question ‘which boy?’ So, it is easy to
understand that the clause plays the role of the Qualifier of the core noun, i.e. to define it.
The defining relative clause is not separated with the defined noun by any punctuation.
Again, defining relative clauses can be finite (full relative clauses with Wh-words (accept
what) or that as relative pronouns as discussed in the previous sections) or non- finite (in
the discussed forms). Many examples mentioned above prove this.

1. 3. 2. Non - Restrictive relative clauses
Non-restrictive relative clauses are also called 'non-defining' relative clauses because they
do not define or restrict the reference of the antecedent noun. They only give extra
information about an antecedent.

Hallidayan grammar interprets the relation between clauses in the clause complex by two
systemic dimensions: ‘These two (systems) together will provide the functional framework
for describing the clause complex’ (Halliday, 1994).

(i) the system of interdependency or ‘tactic’ system, parataxis and hypotaxis which is

clause. In that case, the sequence in the clause complex will be α <<=>>β in which α is the
symbol of the primary clause, and β is the symbol of the secondary clause, α = β is the
notation of hypotation. If the non-defining relative clause occurs at the end, a comma is put
before the relative pronoun. In that case the sequence will be α ^ = β. Finite and non-finite
relative clauses both can serve as hypotactic elaborations (Thompson, 1996, p. 202)

1. 3. 3. Finite relative clauses
In ‘An Introduction to Functional Grammar’ (1994) Halliday grouped these clauses into 3
groups:
(i) Clauses with which whose domain is either the whole of the primary clause or some
part of it’s (which is more than a nominal group.). However, the former case is less 20
frequent.
e.g. The city is developing rapidly, which is the result of everybody’s effort.
In the above example, the relative pronoun which denotes the event the city is developing
rapidly.
e.g. I was afraid of him so I tried not to meet him, which made me panicked.
The relative clause above means ‘meeting him made me panicked’.
(ii) Clauses with which (occasionally not that), who, whose which further characterize a
nominal group:
e.g. She hates black cats, which always make her sick.
which in the above instance denotes black cats so the relative clause with which here has
the domain of this nominal group.
(iii) Clauses with when and where give additional information about time or place.
e.g. I’ve been to Uncle Ho’s mausoleum, where Uncle Ho’s body has been
stored very carefully
The additional information in the relative clause above is about Uncle Ho’s mausoleum.
In fact, in some cases, some non-defining relatives can be analyzed rather as belonging to

order, pronouns, functions and the positions. Firstly, the unmarked word order of Arabic,
VSO, makes it difficult for Saudi learners to relativise English relative clauses whose basic
word order is SVO. Secondly, Arabic relative clauses do not allow the deletion of their
relative pronouns. English relative clauses, on the other hand, allow the deletion of their
relative pronouns functioning as objects because they are optional. This marks the second
difficulty encountered by Saudi learners trying to process the optional flexibility of object
relative pronouns found in English relative clauses. Thirdly, Arabic has no 'that'
complementizer form as English does. This lack of 'that' complementizer form may hinder
Saudi learners from processing English relative clauses having 'that' complementizer. Last
but not least, in contrast to Arabic relative clauses, English relative clauses do not allow
the presence of resumptive pronouns. Arabic relative clauses do have resumptive
pronouns. The presence of incorrect resumptive pronouns in Saudi learners' writing seems
inherent and unavoidable because of their Arabic counterparts.

Newbrook, Mark, Department of Languages City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, discussed the
important features of the standard English relative clauses and made a survey of the most
common errors made by Hong Kong students in using the construction, as follow: a)
Omission of subject relative; b) Omission of an auxiliary verb BE after a subject relative
pronoun; c) Confusion between restrictive and non-restrictive relatives; d) Delayed relative
clause; e) Co-ordination of relative clause with post-modifier of another type; f) Use of