relative pronouns restrictive/non-restrictive in German and French

Kay Champs

Kay Champs

Senior Member
japanese
In writing, you can make a distinction as follows in English:
1) They have a son, who lives in Paris. (the only son)
2) They have a son who lives in Paris. (they may have other sons)

The rule may not always be observed strictly but suppose it is.

In German, you always put a comma before the relative pronoun. In French, you never put a comma before the relative pronoun.
My question is: How do you express the same distinction in German and French?
 
    • In French, I would say:
    1) Ils ont un seul fils, qui habite à Paris (in that case, I would use a comma, and say the sentence with a slight pause)
    2) Ils ont un fils qui habite à Paris
     
    Oh! I did not know French works the same way as English regarding the use of pronouns and commas. Thank you for letting me know about the Website.

    Now, I only have to wait for answers to the same question in German.
     
    German does not make the distinction, neither grammatically, nor orthographically, nor conceptually.

    If it is important for the context, to mark a relative clause as restrictive, you have to rephrase:
    Sie haben einen Sohn, der in Paris lebt can mean 1) or 2).
    If you want to make sure it is understood in sense 2) you have to rephrase it like this:
    Einer ihrer Söhne lebt in Paris (One of their sons lives in Paris).

    If qualified noun occurs with a definite article, there is another way to make the distinction by replacing the article with a special demonstrative pronoun in the main clause. Take the sentences:
    1) The tyres, which are punctured, are stored in the rear warehouse.
    2) The tyres that are punctured are stored in the rear warehouse.

    Die Reifen, die kaputt sind, befinden sich im hinteren Lager
    is ambiguous (die can be understood as an Article or as a demonstrative pronoun) while
    Diejenigen Reifen, die kaputt sind, befinden sich im hinteren Lager
    unambiguously means 2).
     
    Last edited:
    German does not make the distinction, neither grammatically, nor orthographically, nor conceptually.
    Click to expand...
    This says it all for the question in German.
    Thank you, Yendred and berndf.:thumbsup:
     
    berndf, I seem to have overlooked the latter half of your explanation (sorry).
    Yes, the use of "derjenige" would make the restriction clear! Thank you. 😊
     
    The examples I have given could be any sentences. I was curious to know how you manage the distinctions as made in English with regard to relative pronouns and comma in German and French. Languages share some aspects and also differ in other aspects. Interesting.
     
    berndf said:
    German does not make the distinction, neither grammatically, nor orthographically, nor conceptually.

    If it is important for the context, to mark a relative clause as restrictive, you have to rephrase:
    Sie haben einen Sohn, der in Paris lebt can mean 1) or 2).
    If you want to make sure it is understood in sense 2) you have to rephrase it like this:
    Einer ihrer Söhne lebt in Paris (One of their sons lives in Paris).
    Click to expand...
    I suppose the same remarks could also be made for languages that distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, and mainly in spoken language.
    But let's not talk about other languages, let's talk about my native language that distinguishes between these two kinds of relative clauses. I'd never perceive the difference in spoken language, unless you rephrased the sentences, like in @berndf's quote. As for the written language, I have to read again the grammatical rule in order to remember what it says, before I understand the kind of the relative clause. However, I'll always wonder if the author had positioned (or not) the comma correctly.
     
    Last edited:
    Kay Champs said:
    In writing, you can make a distinction as follows in English:
    1) They have a son, who lives in Paris. (the only son)
    2) They have a son who lives in Paris. (they may have other sons)
    Click to expand...
    My English teacher would have disagreed. I was taught that you have to use 'that" in the second sentence.

    1) They have a son, who lives in Paris. (the only son)

    2) They have a son that lives in Paris. (they may have other sons)

    "Who" and "which" start subordinate clauses that just give some extra information, but these clauses can be scrapped and the meaning of the sentence doesn't change. "That" starts a subordinate clause that does change the meaning of the sentence. Another example:

    I am aware that my post is very prescriptive. I have noticed that many English speakers are unaware of this "rule". Especially with people, the rule doesn't always hold, because some speakers then always use "who".

    ____________________________________
    As for your comma rule, Dutch has the same orthographic rule.

    1) Mijn collega’s, die ons nieuwe huis nog niet hebben gezien, komen vanavond eten. = My colleagues, who haven't seen our new house yet, will come eat at our place this evening.

    2) Mijn collega’s die ons nieuwe huis nog niet hebben gezien, komen vanavond eten. = The colleagues of mine that haven't seen our new house yet will come eat at our place this evening.

    Notice that you always put a comma between verbs that belong to different clauses, so even the second sentence requires one comma (instead of two). If it confuses you why verbs of different clauses can be next to each other: in Dutch and German, verbs always come at the end of a subordinate clause (SOV), but the conjugated verb is always in second place in the main clause (V2).

    Taalloket - OnzeTaal
     
    Last edited:
    Exactly. berndf also used the restrictive relative pronoun "that" in post #6 of this thread.
    I remember learning this rule in school a long time ago. I was careless.
    Thank you for your comment.
     
    It is interesting to note that German, which I think is relatively close to Dutch, doe not have such usage of comma with relative clauses.
     
    Red Arrow said:
    I was thought that you have to use 'that" in the second sentence.
    Click to expand...
    This is the situation as I understand it
    • In both, AmE and BrE, who is used in restrictive and in non-restrictive clauses.
    • In both AmE and BrE, that is only used in restrictive clauses.
    • In BrE, which is used in restrictive and in non-restrictive clauses.
    • In AmE, which is avoided in restrictive clauses.
    So, it you want to be on the safe side and to be clear that you mean the clause to be restrictive, use that. But is possible, too.

    Kay Champs said:
    It is interesting to note that German, which I think is relatively close to Dutch, doe not have such usage of comma with relative clauses.
    Click to expand...
    This is because the primary function of the comma in German is to indicate clause boundaries regardless of the type of clause.
     
    Last edited:
    In Dutch, commas can be read as pauses. In normal speech, sentence 1 and 2 sound different, so it makes sense to write them differently. It sounds very awkward to not pause before a non-restrictive clause. Non-restrictive clauses also tend to have a distinct rhythm/tone.

    I am sure that spoken German has the same rule as spoken Dutch and English, it's just that German spelling conventions don't match the spoken language.

    Du hast mir gesagt, dass er krank war.
    Jij hebt me gezegd dat hij ziek was.
    You told me (that) he was sick.

    Do you agree, Berndf, that these three sentences are said at the same pace with no pause before dass/dat/that?
     
    The general idea in German is that commas represents a weak rising tone followed by rise in tone (in contrast to semicolon and period with a weak falling tone, question mark with the strong rise in tone and exclamation mark with a strong falling tone). I agree that in this sentence there is often no pause and often no rising voice.

    But clause separation is more important. Clauses always have to be separated, either a punctuation mark or by und or oder. The only exception are infinitive clauses where the separating comma can sometimes be omitted.
     
    If fact, when you want to put uhm/euh in the sentence, it can only be placed after that!

    Jij hebt me gezegd dat... euh... hij ziek was.

    In other words, a comma before dat would be non-sensical in Dutch. However, in French, the euh comes before que.

    Tu m'as dit... euh... qu'il était malade.

    This is probably my most frequent mistake in French. Even when I don't say "euh" out loud, I will out a thinking break between que and the pronoun, which is something that native speakers never do.
    berndf said:
    But clause separation is more important.
    Click to expand...
    But the word "dass" already marks the start of a new clause :) This would be as non-sensical as marking nouns with capital letters or something ;)
     
    Last edited:
    Dass is a subjunction not a conjunction. Only conjunctions can serve as clause separator. Subjunctions are considered integral part of the subjugated clause.
     
    But the thing is only marginally relevant to the topic of the thread. For the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive to be differentiated by a punctuation mark, it would be necessary that a language distinguishes them conceptually. And in German this is not the case.
     
    berndf said:
    German does not make the distinction, neither grammatically, nor orthographically, nor conceptually.
    Click to expand...
    Sorry, I can't understand "conceptually" here. The meaning of a restricted or a non-restricted relative clause can be codified in a different way in German than in English, which distinguishes between them two.
    As you said, you just have to rephrase:
    berndf said:
    If it is important for the context, to mark a relative clause as restrictive, you have to rephrase:
    Sie haben einen Sohn, der in Paris lebt can mean 1) or 2).
    If you want to make sure it is understood in sense 2) you have to rephrase it like this:
    Einer ihrer Söhne lebt in Paris (One of their sons lives in Paris).
    Click to expand...
    Another argument is that a German speaker can create restricted or non-restricted relatives clauses in other languages (e.g. English), because they have internalized the concepts "restricted/non-restricted relative clauses".
    So, in my opinion it's not about "concept", but I agree it's about "grammar" and "orthography".
     
    Last edited:
    Perseas said:
    Sorry, I can't understand "conceptually" here. The meaning of a restricted or a non-restricted relative clause can be codified in a different way in German than in English
    Click to expand...
    Thr keyword is can. The distinction is only made where it is intended. In 99% of cases the distinction is not made. English (at least in written language) forces you to make the distinction. That makes a world of a difference and the concept of a systematic differentiation is difficult to understand for many Germans. Look at the discussions in the German forum.
     
    @Kay Champs You don't mention Japanese. I'd be curious to hear if/how the distinction operates.

    A few comments:
    1. Older grammars of English are not quite so black and white on the issue as more recent grammars. For example, Jespersen's (1933) Essentials of English Grammar states that in non-restrictive clauses, 'a comma, often comes before a wh-clause, especially if it is continuative' (p. 356). So 'often', not always, and 'especially' with continuative clauses (also known as 'comment clauses'), implying that in other cases it's not so common. Palmer's (1924) A Grammar of Spoken English uses the terms 'determinative use' and 'parenthetical use'. However, to punctuate the latter, which seem to be equivalent to non-restrictive clauses, he uses parentheses not commas. His example of parenthetical use is also highly ambiguous: 'The school (where I used to teach) is just over there.'
    2. Typically, we don't use 'that' in non-restrictive clauses, but you can occasionally find examples of it, even in written contexts, e.g. journalism. These could be dismissed simply as errors, but equally maybe it shows that the system in English is inherently unstable, to an extent.
    3. The really clear-cut examples are with the definite article, and are cleverly constructed to illustrate the difference: classic examples like 'The passengers who fastened their seatbelts survived' vs. 'The passengers, who fastened their seatbelts, survived'. With the indefinite article, it's sometimes hard to decide on whether a defining or non-defining clause (and punctuation) would be more appropriate, e.g. 'I bought this in a shop in London which sells antiques' vs. 'I bought this in a shop in London, which sells antiques'. So I do not think there is absolutely systematic differentiation in English in all contexts.
     
    gburtonio said:
    @Kay Champs You don't mention Japanese. I'd be curious to hear if/how the distinction operates.

    A few comments:
    1. Older grammars of English are not quite so black and white on the issue as more recent grammars. For example, Jespersen's (1933) Essentials of English Grammar states that in non-restrictive clauses, 'a comma, often comes before a wh-clause, especially if it is continuative' (p. 356). So 'often', not always, and 'especially' with continuative clauses (also known as 'comment clauses'), implying that in other cases it's not so common. Palmer's (1924) A Grammar of Spoken English uses the terms 'determinative use' and 'parenthetical use'. However, to punctuate the latter, which seem to be equivalent to non-restrictive clauses, he uses parentheses not commas. His example of parenthetical use is also highly ambiguous: 'The school (where I used to teach) is just over there.'
    2. Typically, we don't use 'that' in non-restrictive clauses, but you can occasionally find examples of it, even in written contexts, e.g. journalism. These could be dismissed simply as errors, but equally maybe it shows that the system in English is inherently unstable, to an extent.
    3. The really clear-cut examples are with the definite article, and are cleverly constructed to illustrate the difference: classic examples like 'The passengers who fastened their seatbelts survived' vs. 'The passengers, who fastened their seatbelts, survived'. With the indefinite article, it's sometimes hard to decide on whether a defining or non-defining clause (and punctuation) would be more appropriate, e.g. 'I bought this in a shop in London which sells antiques' vs. 'I bought this in a shop in London, which sells antiques'. So I do not think there is absolutely systematic differentiation in English in all contexts.
    Click to expand...
    Do you think that the systematic distinction in English is an artifact of prescriptivist grammar?
     
    berndf said:
    Do you think that the systematic distinction in English is an artifact of prescriptivist grammar?
    Click to expand...
    I don't feel I can answer definitively. I suspect there is an element of that, but it's probably not that simple. It's clearly not something like the rules proscribing 'split infinitives' or insisting that 'less' cannot be used with plural nouns, two prescriptive rules that do not (and never have) reflect actual usage. There is a semantic distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, something that goes beyond the imagination of prescriptive grammarians.

    You say that in German, the distinction is not made in 99% of cases, but only when necessary. In the end, this may not be so different in English; you generally have to come up with specially invented examples to create the possibility of genuine ambiguity so it's not really an issue most of the time (in brings to mind the concept of 'phonological neutralisation'). I suspect that in speech you would find many, many examples of non-restrictive clauses with 'that'. In theory, we could use corpus evidence to check this (e.g. the BNC 2014 for spoken British English), but the reality is that when you look at spoken transcriptions (which obviously don't have commas, unless they're artificially added) it's often difficult or impossible to work out whether for a given example the speaker was intending a restrictive or a non-restrictive use. So you can't get very far going down that route. Yet despite this, we're all able to understand each other when speaking, which rather reinforces my point.

    So I think it's more about written standards – the apparent gradual shift to the obligatory use of commas in non-restrictive clauses, and also tendencies on pronoun choice (avoidance of 'that' in non-restrictive clauses, and the prescriptive-ish rule for American English which proscribes the use of 'which' in restrictive clauses). What these do, I think, is make English speakers more aware of the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and make it more salient for us, even when learning other languages.
     
    Japanese is so different in the subject we are talking about from the Indo-European languages that comparison may be meaningless in this regard (we do have relative clauses comparable to yours, though). The Japanese counterpart of the comma plays no rule comparable to those played by the comma in English, French or German, in making the kind of distinctions discussed here.
    The fact that nouns in Japanese could mean something in singular or plural may also be among the reasons the comparison is meaningless. For example, wheny you say "musuko" in Japanese, it could mean a son and/or sons. So you would have to think about the structure of the sentence or add words or phrases to make it clear if it is "an only son" or "sons" when it is necessary.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top