The problem with the rest of the sentence structure:
1) that indicates ... as an active process that ... - that indicates...as is unidiomatic.
2) A child acquiring language...as an active process... - Incorrect comparison of a verb with a noun

It can be correctly written as follows:
...that indicates a child's acquisition of language, thinking, and emotional skills to be an active process that may be largely completed before age three.

However Anurag, I have a doubt.
In your explanation, you have mentioned that the clause beginning with that is modifying the entire preceding noun phrase Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted an all-day White House scientific conference on new findings. Since the central piece of the phrase is conference(singular), the verb should be indicates (singular). Now, in that case, the sentence would mean that the conference is indicating that a child's acquisition of certain skills is an active process. This seems slightly weird.

On the other hand, if we consider the clause beginning with that to modify findings(plural), then the verb would be indicate (plural). The meaning conveyed by this statement would be that Hillary Clinton hosted a conference on new findings. These findings indicate that a child's acquisition of certain skills is an active process. In my opinion this is more consistent.

Please clarify.

Anurag@Gurome wrote:Oops - that's a good catch, niksworth. Very instructive too. That is what happens when you delve too deep before stepping back and understanding the meaning of the entire sentence.

Indeed, as you pointed out, it is the findings that indicate (not the conference). In this case, the latter part of the noun phrase is what gets modified by "that...". I am glad I said "Generally speaking, the verb in a modifier refers to the entire noun phrase". This example is a good exception.

To avoid the mistake I made, it's useful to step back and understand what the author is really trying to say (as you did niksworth).

Phew!

Hi anurag,
It is the findings that indicate a child's aquiring language as an active process.
How can a conference indicate that.So how come the modifier is modifying the noun phrase .It should modify only the word findings

mundasingh123 wrote:

Anurag@Gurome wrote:Oops - that's a good catch, niksworth. Very instructive too. That is what happens when you delve too deep before stepping back and understanding the meaning of the entire sentence.

Indeed, as you pointed out, it is the findings that indicate (not the conference). In this case, the latter part of the noun phrase is what gets modified by "that...". I am glad I said "Generally speaking, the verb in a modifier refers to the entire noun phrase". This example is a good exception.

To avoid the mistake I made, it's useful to step back and understand what the author is really trying to say (as you did niksworth).

Phew!

Hi anurag,
It is the findings that indicate a child's aquiring language as an active process.
How can a conference indicate that.So how come the modifier is modifying the noun phrase .It should modify only the word findings

@mundasingh123 -
That is exactly what Anurag has written in the his post quoted by you. Read again carefully!

Thanks Anurag and Niksworth. The explanation is understandable.
But I am still not able to formulate a pattern with 'that'
For one I am clear that 'that' can refer to compound subjects!

If a "clause with prepositional phrase + that" - > 'that' refers to what?
Does it depend on the context of the sentence.
From the Manhattan SC Guide - that should refer to the nearest noun. The rule in itselft does not hold good since
that can refer to compound nouns as well.

Can you give me more clarity on this please.

gmatrant wrote:Thanks Anurag and Niksworth. The explanation is understandable.
But I am still not able to formulate a pattern with 'that'
For one I am clear that 'that' can refer to compound subjects!

If a "clause with prepositional phrase + that" - > 'that' refers to what?
Does it depend on the context of the sentence.
From the Manhattan SC Guide - that should refer to the nearest noun. The rule in itselft does not hold good since
that can refer to compound nouns as well.

Can you give me more clarity on this please.

That generally modifies the noun that it touches. However, like any rule on earth, this too has exceptions.

When the prepositional phrase which modifies the subject of the sentence is essential to the identity of the subject (so that rewrite is not possible), then that can refer to the subject of the noun phrase and not the noun nearest to it.

So in a sense, this has to come out of the statement itself.

An example of this exception is the statement discussed in this thread.

Another example: The cafe near the riverside that serves hot chocolate free with the morning meal will be shut down.

So, in a nutshell -
1. that marks a restrictive relative clause.
2. The relative clause beginning with that generally modifies the noun which is nearest to it.
3. The relative clause beginning with that can sometimes refer to the subject of the noun phrase if the prepositional phrase is essential and cannot be replaced elsewhere. However, this reference should be unambiguous and should come out clearly from the sentence.
4. The relative clause beginning with that can refer to compound nouns/pronouns.