relative clauses with indefinite articles

[thethinker]

Is there a difference in meaning between these pairs of sentences? Are either in each pair preferable? Are either wrong?

They own a small shop which sells a variety of products.
They own a small shop, which sells a variety of products.

They're looking for an employee who will manage the accounts.
They're looking for an employee, who will will manage the accounts.

Does the difference between defining and non-defining relative clauses diminish when they refer back to an indefinite noun clause? Why?

[lolwhites]

I would say not - I see a definite difference of meaning in your second pair:

An employee who will manage the accounts suggests that his/her job will be primarily, or solely, managing the accounts, while an employee, who will manage the accounts implies he/she will, among other things, manage the accounts.

[thethinker]

So why does a similar difference in meaning not occur in the first pair? And what if we remove this possibility by saying:

They're looking for an employee who will only be responsible for managing the accounts.
They're looking for an employee, who will only be responsible for managing the accounts.

[lolwhites]

To me, the second examples in each pair still have the "additional information" feel to them, although the distinction is minor. But maybe it's also because of the semantics of your examples. All shops sell products, so defining one by the fact that it sells products would be rather incongruous - what else is a shop supposed to do? And in your second pair, your relative clauses have a very narrrow meaning, hence it's difficult to see how they would be different.

I think the difference in meaning, or lack of, in your examples comes down to what comes after the relative pronoun, not the indefinite article before.

[thethinker]

What's bothering me isn't so much the slight differences in meaning, if there are any, between the two. It's more that to me both seem possible and are much closer in meaning than you would get if there was a definite article in the main clause, e.g.:

The employee, who looks after the accounts, is not very punctual.
The employee who looks after the accounts is not very punctual.

The small shop which sells perfume is closing down soon.
The small shop, which sells perfume, is closing down soon.

I'm sure everyone here knows the rules about relative clauses well enough for me not to have to explain the difference between these pairs.

So, how about this modified version of one of my original examples (to avoid the products objection):

They own a small shop which sells perfume.
They own a small shop, which sells perfume.

I don't think the first relative clause is defining or restricting the meaning of "a small shop" in the same way as the examples above with the definite article. So does that mean the relative clause is non-defining? And if so, why do I prefer the first version without a comma?

[lolwhites]

But surely the differences here come down to the difference between definite and indefinite articles. In both cases, the "non-defining" clause suggests "incidentally".

...the small shop which sells perfume.. = you know which shop I'm talking about. Not the one that sells newspapers.
...the small shop, which sells perfume.. = you know which shop I'm talking about. Incidentally, it sells perfume (in case you didn't know) - not that it matters much as it's closing down anyway.
...a small shop which sells perfume... = one (of many?) shops which sell perfume, which you may not have heard of before as I'm mentioning it for the first time.
...a small shop, which sells perfume... = one (of many?) shops which you may not have heard of as I'm mentioning it for the first time, which, incidentally, sells perfume.

Sorry if I'm being patronising, but either I'm missing your point or you're llooking in the wrong place, but I think the differences in meaning have more ot do with the general principles applying to articles which don't change the meaning of the clauses any more than they would any other noun phrase they might introduce.

[Stephen Jones]

I agree with lolwhites. Look at these two examples.

You need to go to a hospital where you can have an MRT scan.

You need to go to a hospital, where you can have an MRT scan.

[thethinker]

No you're not being patronising at all. And your example is extremely useful Stephen. What was confusing me is that with the defining clause and the indefinite article is that the clause doesn't tell us which shop is being mentioned, whereas when we have a definite article it does (i.e. a small shop which = we still don't know exactly which one, just the type; the small shop which = we know which shop).

So is it fair to say that when we have a defining relative clause with an indefinite noun phrase that the relative clause does not restrict the noun in the main clause to a particular entity, but to a type (e.g. the hospital example)? And as this is the case, it is often possible to use the defining and non-defining clauses more interchangeably with indefinite noun clauses as in both cases we are not actually restricting the noun phrase to something specific?

[metal56]

Here, there is a difference in the meaning and reference of "will":

They're looking for an employee who will manage the accounts. (The employee must be willing to do that particular job. Or, the speaker had a previous employee who made a has of managing the accounts and now the employer wants a capable person.)


They're looking for an employee, who will manage the accounts.

Extra information. The job is managing the accounts. No choice, he/she will do that.

[Po_lenta]

Hi, thethinker.

I've run into this same problem when talking about non-/defining relative clauses with my students.

I think you're right in saying that the indefinite article changes the function played by the relative clause.

Here's my take on the issue:

When you use "a" with a non-defining relative clause, the clause refers strictly to the preceding noun group ("a ...," the object of the main clause) and provides a definition of "a ..." What's happening is that you're defining "a small shop," not "the small shop that they own." And the definition of "a small shop" is, of course, not "something which sells a variety of products," which is why the sentence sounds odd.

I found the same problem when talking in class about cities. If you say:

"Rome is a city in which you can see lots of ancient buildings," the defining relative clause refers to Rome.

If, however, you say:

"Rome is a city, in which you can see lots of ancient buildings," the non-defining relative clause is saying: "Rome is a city and a city is a place in which you can see lots of ancient buildings."

[Stephen Jones]

The indefinite article makes no difference at all.

In the example you give we have two separate structures

• Rome is a city where you can see lots of ancient buildings.
  Rome is a city.

Plenty of examples where the same thing happens with the definite article:

• He went to the cafe where they serve a stupendous cappuccino.
  He went to the cafe, where they serve a stupendous cappuccino.

[Po_lenta]

Not sure that I'm following.

Could you answer this question - Do you think that sentences such as:

Rome is a city, where you can see lots of ancient buildings.

and

They own a small shop, which sells perfume.

make any sense?

(To my ears, they're impossible.)

In

He went to the cafe, where they serve a stupendous cappuccino.

"Which café?" has already been specified (by the), so that what follows in the dependent clause is incidental information.

If the domain of the non-defining relative clause hasn't been specified (as in your "a hospital" example), the non-defining relative clause can then only contain information that helps to define that domain. I think this is what thethinker had in mind in his original post.

[Stephen Jones]

Do you think that sentences such as:

Rome is a city, where you can see lots of ancient buildings.

and

They own a small shop, which sells perfume.

make any sense?

The second sentence makes perfect sense; they own and one of the things it sells is perfume. The first makes sense but fails on the truth proviso, since there are plenty of cities where there are no ancient buildings.

If the domain of the non-defining relative clause hasn't been specified (as in your "a hospital" example), the non-defining relative clause can then only contain information that helps to define that domain.

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. How is 'go to a hospital' different from 'own a shop' in this respect

[Po_lenta]

Let's bring the Rome and small shop sentences into better alignment. Perhaps we can say:

Rome is a city, which has lots of ancient buildings.

(or, alternatively: They own a small shop, where you can buy perfume.)

Does the Rome sentence still "fail on the truth proviso"? Yes. Why? Because a city is not necessarily a place which has lots of ancient buildings. Agreed.

So, following that line, can we say a small shop is therefore a place that sells perfume?

Also, what would you say the relative clause refers to? Does it refer to:

they own or a small shop or own a small shop?

[Stephen Jones]

The relative clause refers to 'a small shop which they own'.

Compare to
They visited a beautiful city, where there were hundreds of ancient buildings.