2

Inside a prep book the following sentence is WRONG on the grounds that "that" modifies the closest noun "home".

John F. Kennedy, one of the most social U.S. presidents, held many parties in his family home that featured elaborate meals of local fish and lobster, famous guest and late nights.

However, in the same book, the following sentence is CORRECT with the reasoning that "that" is not restrictive and clearly modifies parties.

John held parties for his kids that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food.

What am I missing here?

Robusto
  • 151,571
jason
  • 21
  • 7
    The book's wrong. – Hot Licks Oct 16 '19 at 23:52
  • 2
    That's preposterous. No such rule. –  Oct 17 '19 at 00:01
  • 'that' can be used as a demonstrative (a kind of adjective) and as a relative pronoun (which heads a relative clause that may modify a noun. An adjective is a single-word modifier that comes before a noun. A relative clause follows the noun. In the latter class the 'that' itself is not modifying the noun, but the entire clause is. That first sentence is awkward but not because 'that' follows the noun. – Mitch Oct 17 '19 at 00:15
  • The parties featured elaborate meals, not his ffamily home. – Centaurus Oct 17 '19 at 00:26
  • That that that that first example has is the same kind of that that that second example has. – Lawrence Oct 17 '19 at 01:51
  • Why is it "a prep book" and not a specific title and author? – Ray Butterworth Oct 17 '19 at 01:53
  • If they put that on the outside of the book, no one would buy it. – David M Oct 17 '19 at 04:54

1 Answers1

3

This "that" does not modify a noun, but rather it introduces a restrictive relative clause, and the relative clause is what modifies the noun it goes with. Your examples also involve extraposition of relative clauses, which makes their structure hard to understand.

John held parties for his kids that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food.

This is from the (stylistically inferior and ambiguous):

John held parties that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food for his kids.

Here, the relative clause follows immediately the noun, "parties", which it modifies. So this makes clear the point of extraposing the relative clause to the end of the higher clause.

Greg Lee
  • 17,406
  • 1
    The rule is often called Extraposition from NP. – John Lawler Oct 17 '19 at 02:29
  • Two questions. (1) What do you mean "Your examples also involve extraposition of relative clauses, which makes their structure hard to understand"? As long as you understand NP extraposition, how come it's hard to understand the structure of those examples? (2) You seem to be saying that the OP's second example is correct. What about the first example? Do you agree with "the prep book" that the first example is "wrong"? Or do you think that the first is correct as well? – JK2 Oct 17 '19 at 03:09
  • @JK2, Both examples are okay. Both have relative clauses modifying "parties" which have been extraposed to the end of the containing clause. (NP extraposition is not involved. "That" does not modify anything.) – Greg Lee Oct 17 '19 at 13:01