Cited by 250Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistic Studies and Language Acquisition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Relative Clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction

Fox, Barbara A., Thompson, Sandra A.·2007·Studies in Language

Abstract

This paper is a usage-based study of the grammar of that set of English Relative Clauses with which a relativizer has been described as optional. We argue that the regularities in the use of relativizers in English can be seen as systematically arising from pragmatic-prosodic factors, creating frequency effects, resulting in some cases highly grammaticized formats: the more the Main Clause and the Relative Clause are integrated with each other, that is, approach monoclausal status, the more likely we are to find no relativizer used; conversely, the more separate the two clauses are, the more likely we are to find an overt relativizer. These findings have led us to suggest that the more monoclausal combinations have become unitary storage and processing chunks. We thus see these findings as a contribution not only to our understanding of Relative Clauses, but to our understanding of syntactic organization in general and of the nature of the grammatical practices in which speakers engage in everyday interactions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Object RCs in spoken English rarely contain a relative pronoun.

    “both Roland et al. (2007) and Fox and Thompson (2007) have shown that object RCs in spoken English rarely contain a relative pronoun.”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Fox and Thompson (2007)

  • The likelihood of overt relativizer (that, which) use is subject to frequency constraints.

    “The likelihood of overt relativizer (that, which) use is also subject to frequency constraints: Fox and Thompson (2007) identified several variables that predict the use/non-use of the relativizer, one being whether or not the RC subject was expressed as a pronoun (leading to non-use).”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Fox and Thompson (2007)

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 250

Metadata

Authors
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Venue
Studies in Language
Published
2007-04-06
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
293-326
ISSN
  • 0378-4177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1569-9978
OpenAlex
W2013005129
Cited by
250
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
22.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Studies in Language (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
Keywords
relative clauses, English language, relativizers, frequency effects, grammaticalization, chunking, syntactic organization, spoken language, usage-based grammar

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review