3. Noun Complement Clauses vs. Relative Clauses
Noun complement clauses are clauses which are complements of head nouns like
fact, idea, claim, theory, etc: i.e. the that-clause in (18):
Noun complement clauses look superficially rather similar to relative clauses, but
there
are clear syntactic differences between the two.
(1) Relative clauses can either be introduced by a complementiser (that), or a wh-
word like
who or which, whereas noun complement clauses are always introduced by a com-
plementiser
(that), never by a wh-word:
(2) A complementiser(that) introducing a relative clause can often be omitted in English,
but omitting the complementiser in a noun complement clause tends to result in a relatively
unidiomatic structure as in (20):
(3) Relative clauses can be used to modify any head noun, whereas noun complement
clauses are only found after a restricted set of head nouns as in (21):
▶ There are clear structural differences between Relative Clauses and Noun Complement
Clauses, bearing in mind that constituents are generally subcategorized in respect of
the range of sister constituents they permit. This can be clarified within the framework
of X-bar syntax.
▶ Relative clauses would be complements (=sisters) of an N-bar, whereas noun comple-
ment
clauses would be complements(=sisters) of an N, as shown in (22) and (23):
To be more precise, the relative clause(S’) that is a sister of an N-bar can be an adjunct,
while noun complement clause(S’) that is a sister of an N can be a complement. An ad-
junct
can be detachable but a complement cannot, with respect to the semantic interpretations.
4. Noun Complement Clauses are islands
WH-Movement, Topicalisation, Though-Movement, V’-Preposing, and Adverb Prepos-
ing
cannot extract a related constituent out of a Noun Complement Clause:
(a) WH-Movement: *What can’t you explain the fact that he bought ?
(b) Topicalisation: *Bananas, I don’t believe the rumour that he hoards .
(c) Though-Movement: *Very intelligent though I believe your claim that she is ,
the fact remains that she can only count up to 5.
(d) V’-Preposing: *Some say that he was playing cricket, but playing cricket I don’t
believe the unfounded allegation that he was .
(e) Adverb Preposing: *Tomorrow, I have already rejected the possibility that there
will be a strike .
In the light of these phenomena, the constraint ‘No rule can move any element out of
a Noun Complement Clause’ can be suggested. So Noun Complement Clauses are islands.
Both Relative Clause Constraint and Noun Complement Clause Constraint can be
replaced by a single constraint as Complex Noun Phrase Constraint(CNPC):
Noun Complement Clause: *What can’t you explain the fact [that he bought ] ?
Relative Clause: *What have you met the man [that invented ] ?
Since the WH-Movements in both extract ‘what’ out of the categories that the
‘what’ is
included, the two sentences are ungrammatical, resulting from violating Complex
Noun
Phrase Constraint of (32).
5. Sentential Subjects are Islands (Sentential Subject Constraint)
For one clause to function as the subject of another, the following five movements
cannot extract a related element out of the clausal subject, which means that the
embedded(=subordinate) clause functions as the subject of the main clause.
(a) WH-Movement: *What would for me to give up be a pity?
(b) Topicalisation: *Linguistics, for you to give up would be a wise move.
(c) Though-Movement: *Extremely attractive though that Mary is may seem obvious,
not everyone think so.
(d) V’-Preposing: *Unzipping his banana, for him to be while Mary was talking to
him would be extremely rude.
(e) Adverb Preposing: *Tomorrow, for him to leave would be a pity.
Sentential Subject Constraint (40) can be proposed for the above phenomena.
