My running example is the sentence (from the VAT law of one country):
The building land is the plot in relation to which the building permit has been issued.
There are possible at least two views on this sentence:
Natural view: this sentence describes the plot in relation to which the special action has happened that is described by the full sentence
the building permit has been issued, so - the noun
plothas relation to the full sentence
the building permit has been issuedand
in relation to whichacts as some kind of conjunction that relates noun with the sentence. I understand that this it somehow weird interpretation but it conforms to the axiom, that is taught in the secondary school, that subordinate clauses explains (ore replaces) some words in the main clause. My understanding is that such axiom is complete failure - see the next point.
Grammatically correct view: one should perceive
whichas anaphoric pronoun and
in relation toas the adverb (and there is pied-piping) and the full subordinate clause then can be rewritten as
building permit has been issued in relation to which (i.e. plot). So - actually - subordinate clause never explains (never can be attributable) to some word in the main clause. In reality the subordinate clause is just another full sentence which can refer to some word in the main clause only by (possibly implied) anaphoric pronouns. And anaphora is the only mechanism through which the subordinate clause describes some word in the main clause. So - this should be the ultimate axiom of the compound sentences - compound sentences always can be separated as standalone clauses that are joined together by logical connectives (conjunction, disjounction, implication - and only these) and there are no other kind of logical connectives that can serve for modelling subordination: i.e. subordinate clause is just free standing clause that adds or negates some more information (as a separate sentence/proposition (in logical terms)) about some word in the main clause (via anaphora).
So - see point 2 for how I understand subordination. Is my understanding of subordination correct (as stated in point 2)? And what about point 1 analysis? Maybe that is quite sound analysis? Maybe there are sentences that should be analysed in that way and maybe there are sentences in whom the full subordinate clause explains some word in the main clause (without anaphora)?
Actually I am figthing this sentence for half a year (see my other questions - "in relation to which" - what type of subordinated clause and is this conjunction somehow distinct? What is the term for the formation of word groups with single meaning/function (e.g. "in relation to which") in lingustics Formal semantics of subordinate clauses (compound sentences) - in categorial and type logical grammars?) and just wanted to know - is this sentence really so weird and hard?