Editing Restrictiveness (section)

==Restrictiveness in English==
{{main|English relative clauses}}
English does not generally mark modifiers for restrictiveness, with the exception of [[relative clause]]s: non-restrictive ones are set off in speech through [[intonation (linguistics)|intonation]] (with a pause beforehand and {{dubious span|an uninterrupted melody|date=December 2017}}) and in writing by using commas, whereas restrictive clauses are not. Furthermore, although restrictive clauses can be headed by any of the [[relative pronoun]]s ''who(m)'', ''which'', ''that'' or by a [[English relative clauses#Zero relative pronoun|zero]], non-restrictive clauses can only be headed by ''who(m)'' or ''which''. For example:

*Restrictive: ''We saw two puppies this morning: one that was born yesterday and one that was born last week. The one '''that ('''''or'' '''which{{efn|In formal [[American English]], the use of ''which'' as a restrictive pronoun is often considered to be incorrect. See [[English relative clauses#That or which|That or which]].}}) was born yesterday''' is tiny.''
*Non-restrictive: ''We saw a puppy and a kitty this morning. The puppy, '''which was born yesterday''', was tiny.''

Although English does not consistently mark ordinary [[adjective]]s for restrictiveness, they can be marked [[periphrasis|periphrastically]] by moving them into relative clauses. For example, "John's beautiful wife" can be rewritten as "John's wife, who is beautiful", to avoid the suggestion of disambiguation between John's various wives.  A sentence unmarked for restrictiveness, like "The red car is fancier than the blue one," can—if necessary—be rephrased to make it explicitly restrictive or non-restrictive: 
*Restrictive: ''The car that's red is fancier than the one that's blue.''
*Non-restrictive: ''The car, which is red, is fancier than the other, which is blue.''

English speakers do not generally find such locutions necessary, however.