Resumptive pronouns (is that the right term?) in relative clauses

[pne]

An interesting construction I came across just now here: the pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's said some things that a lot of people don't want a President who believes.

That's the sort of thing that makes me wonder whether English wouldn't be "better" if it had mandatory, or at least optional, resumptive pronouns.

Comments

[hidden-kitten.livejournal.com]

That is a very awkwardly constructed sentence. Now that I see the context, it could have been said so much better. Maybe "who's also said a lot of convtroversial things" or "who holds undesirable beliefs/says undesirable things".
It comes off that the writer is trying to sound very important, but that sentence shows that he tried too hard.

[pne.livejournal.com]

That is a very awkwardly constructed sentence.

It is, and ungrammatical in my 'lect.

I had to think about it and mentally insert the blank (as "who's said some things that a lot of people don't want a President who believes ____" so I'd now what element of the clause was raised as the "that" of the relative pronoun) before I could parse it.

It comes off that the writer is trying to sound very important, but that sentence shows that he tried too hard.

He used a similar construction elsewhere, and my guess was that this is part of his 'lect, rather than a deliberate choice in order to sound important.

You could be right, of course.

[pne.livejournal.com]

It is, and ungrammatical in my 'lect.

More or less as, say, "That's the boy who I like to play with Jim and".

[elgrande.livejournal.com]

Can you explain the structure of that sentence?

[hidden-kitten.livejournal.com]

That is an ugly little sentence you made, there. D: It's almost like a misplaced modifier, but without the lols.

[hidden-kitten.livejournal.com]

Ungrammatical, yes. Very. Like a sentence fragment. I don't believe I've seen many sentences with a verb at the end. Is it common in other languages?

[alsatia.livejournal.com]

While it's certainly awkward and could have been worded better, I had no trouble understanding what was intended. I've seen similar sentence constructions fairly often. *checks writer's location* Missouri. Hmm. I suppose that's roughly considered the same region as Indiana.

I think I would have said

[(Anonymous)]

if I understand correctly what the original author was attempting to write:

It was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has expressed quite a few controversial beliefs, the likes of which many people do not want to find in their President.

...or something along those lines.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

1. I have.
2. It is.

[hidden-kitten.livejournal.com]

Clever clever ;)

[sedesdraconis.livejournal.com]

Resumptive pronoun is the term I remember.

The example doesn't set off my ungrammatical judgment, but I think that's just because I took too many syntax classes and everything seems grammatical these days. Cause I'm pretty sure that's an island violation.

[tungol.livejournal.com]

Cause I'm pretty sure that's an island violation.
As am I. But, I've said things similar to it spontaneously for years, since before I knew enough syntactic terminology to explain it. They always sound a little odd but only after they're out of my mouth. Which suggests that they are in some sense grammatical for me.

Examples of sentences I've produced:
"I like it because I feel like it's something that I really know what means"
"I discovered a cut on my finger today that I have no idea how I got."

[pne.livejournal.com]

Compare the grammatical (at least for me) "That's not a book I'd want to read ___", which has the verb at the end, too.

Re: I think I would have said

[pne.livejournal.com]

That's what I understood, too.

Or, closer to the original wording: the pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and a lot of people don't want a President who believes some of the things he's said.

Though that doesn't tie the two clauses together particularly well, since it seems to switch over from Revd. Wright to "a lot of people" unmotivatedly, rather than transitioning via "the things he said".

[pne.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's easier if I include the "slot" for the resumptive pronoun explicitly?

"the pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's said some things that [a lot of people don't want a President who believes ____]"

So, JW has said some things X such that: a lot of people don't want a President who believes X.

They're raising (I think this is the term) the object of the sub-subordinate clause ("he believes X", child of "a lot of people don't want a President") referring to it with "that" in the main clause. Or something like that.

It's roughly the same as "JW, who's said some things that [I don't believe ___]", only with the gap one clause deeper than in this last example.

[pne.livejournal.com]

Interesting; thanks for weighing in your perspective, and for confirming what I had guessed.

I found it rather hard to understand, but it sounded like the sort of thing that might by in use in some areas -- i.e., like something that came fairly natural to him.

I suppose my difficulty to understand was because I hadn't been exposed to similar constructions before.

[ubykhlives.livejournal.com]

I've come across some instances in colloquial English where resumptive pronouns are developing, but I can't for the life of me think of an example... I'll have to see if I can dig one up.

But I find the sentence you gave to be grammatical, but just barely - it's so awkward that I wouldn't have thought anyone would ever actually produce it. Certainly no-one would use a sentence like that in spoken English.

[ubykhlives.livejournal.com]

Ah. The commenter above me had one:

"I like it because I feel like it's something that I really know what means"

This doesn't have a resumptive pronoun, but I have heard similar sentences with the resumptive it, so: "I like it because I feel like it's something that I really know what it means". In fact, I would accept the latter and reject the former.

[sedesdraconis.livejournal.com]

"I like it because I feel like it's something that I really know what means"
"I discovered a cut on my finger today that I have no idea how I got."

Interestingly, neither of those give me the same feel as the original sentence under discussion.

The first seems totally ungrammatical to me (and I'm left vaguely wondering if you really know what it means, or you really know what means it).

The second is totally unremarkable to me, I would use or hear it without hesitation.

[tungol.livejournal.com]

Do you agree that they both ought to be island violations?

(And the first meant ~I really know what it means~.)

A prof once told me that wh-island violations are relatively better or worse depending on whether the things involved (perhaps particularly the blocking wh-word, but it was years ago and I forget) were arguments or adjuncts - worse if it's an argument than if it's an adjunct. That is consistent with you thinking my second example is better than my first one.