+0
*I love my father, who is a teacher.*"Who is a teacher" is a non-defining or non-restrictive relative clause.
*He failed the test, which shocked everyone.*"Which shocked everyone" is a sentential relative clause.
(1) Is there any difference between a non-restrictive relative clause & a sentential relative clause?
(2) Are both of these independent clause?
+1
SandipKumarIs there any difference between a non-restrictive relative clause & a sentential relative clause?

I would say that every sentential clause is non-defining, but not all non-defining clauses are sentential.

SandipKumarI love [my father], who is a teacher.

The underlined relative clause modifies the noun phrase 'my father'.

SandipKumarHe failed the test, which shocked everyone.

The underlined sentential clause does not modify 'the test', but the whole preceding clause; 'the test' did not shock everyone, but the fact that 'he failed the test' did so.

SandipKumarAre both of these independent clause?

No, both of them are dependent, because they cannot stand alone as a sentence:

* Who is a teacher.

* Which shocked everyone.

However, in some special/informal contexts you may see sentential clauses as stand-alone sentences, but that does not remove their dependency.

+1

[1] I love my father, who is a teacher.

[2] He failed the test, which shocked everyone.

They are both non-restrictive relative clauses, and thus supplements, not dependents, i.e. they are not dependent on some other element in the larger construction. And, of course, they are not 'independent' clauses either since they cannot stand alone as main clauses.

I don’t like the term 'sentential relative clause', partly because it wrongly suggests that the clause itself is a sentence, partly because the antecedent is (normally) also not a sentence. For example, in He lost his temper, which was quite embarrassing the antecedent is a clause, not a sentence.

Note also that, unlike restrictive relative clauses, non-restrictive ones are not modifiers in that they don't combine with their antecedent to form a larger constituent; rather, they have a semantic 'anchor' that they refer to, which is the same as the antecedent.

In [1] the anchor/antecedent is the noun phrase "my father", and in [2] it is the whole clause "he failed the test".

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Comments  
SandipKumarHe failed the test, which shocked everyone.

From a strictly grammatical point of view, the sentence is ambiguous. The antecedent of the relative which is probably the entire main clause. In other words, the fact that he failed the test shocked everyone. However, the antecedent could also be the test.

English doesn't have enough relative pronouns for ambiguous cases like this. If there were a different relative pronoun for each of the two possible meanings, there could be no ambiguity. As it is, we have to resort to common sense and context to determine the intended meaning. I have said it before: English isn't the most exact language.


CB

Cool BreezeI have said it before: English isn't the most exact language.

That's why software developers have had to invent artificial languages.
A computing machine that could process English would pass the Turing test. Close, but no cigar!

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
 BillJ's reply was promoted to an answer.