Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

3.3.2.3.2.Restrictive relative clauses

quickinfo

The examples in (267) show that noun phrases modified by a restrictive relative clause can fulfill a variety of syntactic functions in the clause: subject, (in)direct object, PP-complement, predicate and adverbial phrase.

267

a.	De man	[die daar woont]	speelt	goed	piano.	subject
	the man	who there lives	plays	well	piano
	'The man who lives there plays the piano well.'

b.	Jan heeft	gisteren	de man	[die daar woont]	ontmoet.	direct object
	Jan have	yesterday	the man	who there lives	met
	'Yesterday, Jan met the man who lives there.'

c.	Ik	heb	de man	[die daar woont]	een CD	gegeven.	indirect object
	I	have	the man	who there lives	a CD	given
	'Iʼve given the man who lives there a CD.'

d.	Ik	heb	naar de man	[die daar woont]	geluisterd.	PP-complement of V
	I	have	to the man	who lives there	listened
	'Iʼve listened to the man who lives there.'

e.	Jan is de beste pianist	[die	ik	ken]	predicate
	Jan is the best pianist	who	I	know
	'Jan is the best pianist that I know.'

f.	Ik	heb	gisteren	gedanst	met de man	[die daar woont].	adv. phrase
	I	have	yesterday	danced	with the man	who there lives
	'Yesterday I danced with the man who lives there.'

Noun phrases modified by a restrictive relative clause can furthermore be used as complement or modifier within another noun phrase. This is illustrated in (268).

268

a.	Mijn bewondering	voor de man	[die daar woont]	is groot.	PP-complement
	my admiration	for the man	who there lives	is great
	'My admiration for the man who lives there is .'

b.		De muziek	van de man	[die daar woont]	is erg mooi.	PP-modifier
		the music	of the man	who there lives	is very beautiful

Subsection I will show, however, that the function of the relative clause itself is the same in all these cases. This is followed in Subsection II by a discussion of the position of restrictive relative clauses and their antecedent in the clause.

I. The function of restrictive relative clauses
- A. Restrictive relative clauses with definite antecedents
- B. Restrictive relative clauses with indefinite antecedents
II. The positions of antecedent and relative clause

[+] I. The function of restrictive relative clauses

Restrictive relative clauses serve to restrict the set of possible referents of their antecedent. Although restrictive relative clauses have this function regardless of the form of the antecedent, it has different implications for relative clauses with definite antecedents and those with indefinite antecedents. In what follows, these two types of relative clauses will therefore be treated separately.

[+] A. Restrictive relative clauses with definite antecedents

What the sentences in (267) and (268) have in common is that the relative clause restricts the set of possible referents of the definite antecedent noun in such a way that the hearer can be assumed to be able to identify its intended referent. From a communicative point of view the presence of the relative clause is required, since if it were left out, the hearer would not have sufficient information to pick out the intended referent of the DP. The fact that the restrictive relative clause serves to restrict the referent set of the antecedent is also clear from the dialogue in (269): the definite article in the first sentence suggests that the hearer is able to identify the intended referent of the noun phrase de man. Bʼs question, however, makes clear that the hearer fails to do so, and B provides additional information in the form of a restrictive relative clause, which restricts the set of male persons to the unique male person who lives next to him/her.

269

a.		De man	speelt	goed	piano.	speaker A
		the man	plays	well	piano

b.		Welke man?	speaker B
		which man

c.	De man	[die	naast mij	woont].	speaker A
	the man	who	next.to me	lives
	'The man who lives next to me.'

As a logical result of their restrictive function, restrictive relative clauses cannot felicitously be used to modify antecedents with unique referents. This will be illustrated in the following subsections for proper nouns and noun phrases with unique referents, antecedents with demonstrative determiners and possessive pronouns, and antecedents in the form of personal pronouns.

[+] 1. Proper nouns and noun phrases with unique reference

Restrictive relative clauses are infelicitous with proper nouns and uniquely referring noun phrases as antecedents; since there is no need for additional information to identify the intended referent, restrictive relative clauses are simply superfluous. Actually, using a restrictive relative clause in such situations will only lead to confusion, as it will suggest a referent set with more than one member. Consider in this respect the sentences in (270). Sentence (270a) is acceptable in any context, because in the default case there is only one sun in the domain of discourse (domain D), so that no further identifying information is needed for the hearer to pick out the intended referent. Adding a restrictive relative clause, as in (270b), has the effect of canceling the default value by suggesting that the set of suns in domain D has a cardinality greater that one.

270

a.	De zon	gaat	elke dag	weer	onder.
	the sun	goes	every day	again	under
	'The sun sets every day.'

b.	$	De zon	[die	ʼs morgens	op komt]	gaat	elke dag	weer	onder.
		the sun	that	in the morning	rises	goes	every day	again	under
		'The sun which rises every morning sets every day.'

Something similar holds for proper nouns: (271a) is acceptable in any context, given that in the default case there is one person with the given name in domain D: adding a restrictive relative clause normally leads to unacceptability, as shown by example (271b).

271

a.	Wibi Soerjadi	speelt	mooi	piano.
	Wibi Soerjadi	plays	beautifully	piano
	'Wibi Soerjadi plays the piano beautifully.'

b.	*	Wibi Soerjadi	[die	naast mij	woont]	speelt	goed	piano.
		Wibi Soerjadi	who	next me	lives	plays	beautifully	piano

The only context in which a proper noun can be followed by a restrictive relative clause is when the proper noun fails to uniquely identify the intended referent within the given context. In that case the referent set denoted by the proper noun is indeed larger than one, which means that the restrictive relative clause has the function of enabling the hearer to select the intended referent. Thus, in the given situation, where both father Jozef and son Isaac are well-known painters, sentence (272a) is perfectly acceptable. Note, however, that in such cases the proper noun no longer functions as a proper noun but as a common noun phrase, as shown by the obligatory use of the definite determiner de'the'. The acceptability of (272b), which also includes a proper noun modified by a restrictive relative clause, can be accounted for in a similar way. See also Sections 1.2.1 and 5.1.2.1 for a more detailed discussion of proper nouns.

272

a.		De Israëls	[die het beroemdst is]	was een impressionist.
		the Israels	that the most.famous is	was an impressionist

b.	De Kennedy	[die	is omgekomen]	was een zoon van de voormalige president.
	the Kennedy	who	is killed	was a son of the former president
	'The Kennedy who was killed was a son of the former president.'

[+] 2. Demonstrative pronouns

Example (273b) shows that, in the general case, restrictive relative clauses cannot easily be used in noun phrases that contain a demonstrative determiner. This is due to the fact that the demonstrative suggests that there are other (linguistic or extra-linguistic) means available to uniquely identify the referent in question.

273

a.		Het concert	[waar	ik	gisteren	naar	toe	ben	geweest]	was fantastisch.
		the concert	where	I	yesterday	to	toe	am	been	was fantastic

b.	*?	Dit concert	[waar	ik	gisteren	naar	toe	ben	geweest]	was fantastisch.
		this concert	where	I	yesterday	to	toe	am	been	was fantastic

In contrastive contexts like those in (274), demonstratives can co-occur with restrictive relative clauses. This is as might be expected, since in such contexts there are always two or more referents which need to be distinguished: the relative clause functions to set the contrasted referents apart from any other elements, while the demonstrative serves to distinguish the contrasted elements from each other.

274

a.		Dit concert	dat	ik	van hem	heb	bijgewoond	was beter	dan het vorige.
		this concert	that	I	of him	have	attended	was better	than the previous

b.	Dat schilderij	dat	hij	van haar	gemaakt	heeft,	is mooier	dan dit hier.
	that painting	that	he	of her	made	has	is nicer	than this here
	'That painting that he has made of her is nicer than this one here.'

In non-contrastive contexts, the distal demonstratives dat/die'that/those' can be used in combination with a restrictive relative clause provided that the demonstrative does not have its usual (uniquely) identifying function. In (275a), for instance, the demonstrative dat is used to introduce an entity into the discourse (comparable to English this), while in (275b) the deictic force of the demonstrative die is insufficient to identify the referent in question. In (275c) the stressed demonstrative is used to refer to an as yet unidentifiable, generic referent set. In all these sentences it is possible to replace the demonstrative by the definite article, whereas leaving out the relative clause will yield unacceptable results in the given contexts.

275

a.	Dat concert	waar	ik	het	gisteren	over	had,	was fantastisch.
	that concert	where	I	it	yesterday	about	had	was fantastic
	'This concert I was talking about yesterday was fantastic.'

b.	Die jongen	die	daar	bij het raam	zit,	woont	naast mij.
	that boy	who	there	at the window	sits	lives	next.to me
	'That boy who is sitting at the window over there is living next to me.'

c.	Ik	bezoek	alleen	die concerten	waarvoor	studenten	korting	krijgen.
	I	visit	only	those concerts	where-for	students	discount	get
	'I go only to those concerts for which students get a discount.'

[+] 3. Possessive pronouns and genitive possessors

Noun phrases containing a possessive pronoun or a genitive possessor behave in much the same way as noun phrases containing a demonstrative pronoun. Generally speaking, the use of a possessor suffices to pick out the intended referent, and, as a result, they typically do not co-occur with a restrictive relative clause. This is shown by example (276a). Once again, exceptions must be made for those cases in which the possessor does not uniquely identify the intended referent within the given context. This is typically the case with family names in examples such as (276b); cf. also Section 5.2.2.2, sub I. Moreover, as with the demonstratives in (274), constructions with a possessor can be more or less felicitously restricted by a relative clause in a contrastive context like (276c).

276

a.	*	Mijn boek	dat	ik	gisteren	gekocht	heb,	was duur.
		my book	that	I	yesterday	bought	have	was expensive

b.		Mijn oom	die	voor een Amerikaans bedrijf	werkt,	is	vaak	in New York.
		my uncle	who	for an American company	works	is	often	in New York

c.	?	Zijn boek	dat	Gerard Reve gesigneerd	heeft	is veel ouder	dan het mijne.
		his book	that	Gerard Reve signed	has	is much older	than the mine
		'His book which Gerard Reve has signed is much older than mine.'

[+] 4. Personal pronouns

A personal pronoun can only be modified by a restrictive relative clause if the pronoun itself does not provide sufficient identifying or restrictive information in the given context; cf. also Subsection IIE. Consequently, restrictive relative clauses cannot be used to modify the singular first person pronoun ik in (277), whose referent is contextually identified as the speaker.

277

a.	*?	Ik	die	uit Nederland	kom,	ben	wel	gewend	aan een nat klimaat.
		I	who	from the.Netherlands	come	am	prt	used	to a wet climate

b.	*	Ik	die	je	zo	geholpen	heeft/heb,	verdien	toch	wel	een bedankje.
		I	who	you	so	helped	has/have	earn	prt	prt	a thank.you

Plural first person pronouns can be relativized, but only in generic contexts. Thus, the pronoun wij'we' in example (278a) has generic reference: it denotes the entire class of Dutch people. In example (278b), on the other hand, wij refers to a contextually determined set of persons, and in that case the use of a restrictive relative clause is unacceptable. Note that the pronoun in (278a) must be stressed, which is probably due to the fact that the referent of a reduced pronoun is always recoverable from the linguistic context.

278

a.	Wij/*We	die	uit Nederland	komen,	zijn	gewend	aan veel regen.
	we	who	from the.Netherlands	come	are	used	to a lot of rain
	'We from the Netherlands are used to a lot of rain.'

b.	*	Wij	die	uit Nederland	komen,	gaan	het toernooi	winnen.
		we	who	from the.Netherlands	come	go	the championship	win
		'We from the Netherlands will win the championship.'

Second person pronouns can also be relativized only in exceptional cases, that is, if the use of the pronoun alone does not sufficiently narrow down the set of possible referents. In (279a), the pronoun is used to address some person who is standing among other people, and the restrictive relative clause is used to properly identify the intended person as the person who is laughing more loudly than the others. In (279b), on the other hand, the pronoun refers to a uniquely identified hearer, and the addition of a restrictive relative clause is infelicitous. Note that the pronoun in (278a) must again be stressed.

279

a.	Jij/*Je	die	daar	zo hard	lacht,	moet	nu	maar	eens	werken.
	you	who	there	so loudly	laughs	should	now	prt	prt	work
	'You who are laughing so loudly better go to work now.'

b.	*?	Jij	die	me	zo	geholpen	heeft/hebt,	hebt	wel	een bedankje	verdiend.
		you	who	me	so	helped	has/have	has	prt	a thank.you	earned

Third person pronouns more freely accept relativization provided that they are non-reduced. For pronouns with (regular) specific reference, this is illustrated in example (280).

280

a.	dat	hij/*ie	die	daar	zo mooi	piano	speelt	woont	naast	mij.
	that	he	who	there	so beautifully	piano	plays	lives	next.to	me
	'He who is playing the piano so beautifully lives next to me.'

b.	Zij/*ze	die	naast me	woont,	heeft	me	dat	verteld.
	she	who	next.to me	lives	has	me	that	told
	'She who lives next to me told me that.'

c.	Ik	heb	hem/*’m	die	naast me	woont	een tijd	niet	meer	gezien.
	I	have	him	who	next.to me	lives	a time	not	more	seen
	'I havenʼt seen him/her who lives next to me for some time.'

In the primeless examples of (281), the same thing is shown for the more special use of pronouns with nonspecific singular reference. Since the pronouns in these examples lack a specific referent and have very little semantic content, the resulting constructions are very similar to so-called semi-free relatives discussed in Section 3.3.2.2, sub IA3. Thus, the antecedent personal pronouns in these constructions can be replaced by the element degene(n)'the one(s)', although this will result in the loss of the gender information expressed by the masculine and feminine pronouns in (281).

281

a.	Wil	hij/*ie	die	de sleutels	heeft	deze	zo snel mogelijk	terugbrengen.
	wants	he	who	the keys	has	these	so quickly possible	return
	'Could he/the person who has the keys return them as quickly as possible?'

a'.

Wil degene die de sleutels heeft deze zo snel mogelijk terugbrengen.

b.	Zij/*ze	die	haar sleutels	heeft	verloren	kan	deze	hier	ophalen.
	she	who	her keys	has	lost	can	these	here	collect
	'She/the female person who has lost her keys can collect them here.'

b'.

Degene die haar sleutels heeft verloren kan deze hier ophalen.

In the primeless examples of (282), the same thing is shown for pronouns with nonspecific universal reference. In this case the pronoun with universal reference can be replaced by quantifiers like iedereen'everyone', in which case the universal reference of the antecedent is emphasized; in (282b') this, of course, requires that the number specification of the verbs is adjusted to the singular feature of the quantifier iedereen.

282

a.	dat	hij/*ie	die	te laat	komt,	wordt	gestraft.
	that	he	who	too late	comes	is	punished
	'that any person who is late will be punished.'

a'.		dat	iedereen	die te laat komt,	wordt	gestraft.
		that	everyone	who too late comes	is	punished

b.	Zij/*ze	die	zich	hebben	ingeschreven,	krijgen	tijdig	bericht.
	they	who	refl	have	registered	receive	in good time	news
	'Those persons who have registered will be informed in good time.'

b'.		Iedereen	die zich heeft ingeschreven,	krijgt	tijdig	bericht.
		everyone	who refl has registered	receives	in good time	news

The examples in (283) show that there is no restriction on the syntactic function of the relativized personal pronoun in the matrix clause: in these examples, the antecedent pronoun functions as, respectively, subject, direct object and indirect object. Note that, just like the subject pronoun, the object pronouns must be non-reduced. As will be clear from (283c), the syntactic function of the antecedent pronoun in the main clause need not correspond to that of the relative pronoun in the relative clause: the former functions as the indirect object of the main clause and the latter as the subject of the relative clause. Note that the pronoun antecedent must have the form required by its syntactic function in the matrix clause; using the form required by a pronoun with the syntactic function of the relative pronoun, as in (283c'), leads to severe ungrammaticality.

283

a.	Zij/*ze [RC	die daar binnenkomt]	is mijn buurvrouw.
	she	who there enters	is my neighbor
	'She who is just coming in is my neighbor.'

b.	Ik	ken	hem/*’m [RC	die ze ontslagen hebben]	niet	persoonlijk.
	I	know	him	who they fired have	not	personally
	'I donʼt know him who they have fired personally.'

c.	Ze	hebben	(?)haar/*’r [RC	die	de hoofdrol	speelt]	een Oscar	toegekend.
	they	have	her	who	the leading part	plays	an Oscar	awarded
	'They have awarded her who plays the lead an Oscar.'

c'.	*	Ze	hebben	zij [RC	die	de hoofdrol	speelt]	een Oscar	toegekend.
		they	have	she	who	the leading part	plays	an Oscar	awarded

Above we have repeatedly pointed out that modification by a restrictive relative clause is only possible with the strong form of the pronouns. Given that the neuter singular third person pronoun is normally pronounced in its reduced form ’t'it', it will not come as a surprise that modification of this pronoun is not possible; as is shown in example (284c), the demonstrative form dat'that' is used instead (with the pronoun wat as relative element).

284

a.	*	We	hebben	het/’t	dat	we	zo graag	hebben	wilden,	gisteren	gekocht.
		we	have	it	that	we	so much	have	wanted	yesterday	bought

b.	We	hebben	dat	wat	we	zo graag	hebben	wilden,	gisteren	gekocht.
	we	have	that	which	we	so much	have	wanted	yesterday	bought
	'We have bought this/that which we wanted to have so much, yesterday.'

[+] B. Restrictive relative clauses with indefinite antecedents

The examples in (285) show that restrictive relative clauses can also have an indefinite antecedent. Again, the relative clauses have a restricting function, although the use of the indefinite article een or the quantifier enkele'some' indicates that in this case they do not serve the purpose of identifying one particular referent for the hearer; the relative clause simply serves to restrict the set of possible referents by providing relevant additional information. In (285), the set of students is restricted to those individuals that attend the speakerʼs class.

285

a.	Een student	die mijn colleges volgt,	heeft	een boek	van me	geleend.
	a student	who my classes follows	has	a book	from me	borrowed
	'A student who attends my classes borrowed a book from me yesterday.'

b.	Ik	heb	een boek	geleend	aan enkele studenten	die mijn college volgen.
	I	have	a book	lent	to some students	who my classes follow
	'Iʼve lent a book to some students who attend my classes.'

Indefinite antecedents of restrictive relative clauses can be specific, that is, known to the speaker but not to the hearer, or nonspecific, that is, neither known to the speaker nor the hearer. This is illustrated by (286a) and (286b&c), respectively.

286

a.	Ik	ontmoette	daar	een paar mensen	die	ik	nog	van vroeger	kende.
	I	met	there	a few people	who	I	yet	of before	knew
	'I met some people that I knew from the old days there.'

b.	Ik	ben	op zoek	naar een student	die	geïnteresseerd	is in taalkunde.
	I	am	on search	to a student	who	interested	is in linguistics
	'Iʼm looking for a student who is interested in linguistics.'

c.	Ik	ben	op zoek	naar studenten	die	geïnteresseerd	zijn	in taalkunde.
	I	am	on search	to students	who	interested	are	in linguistics
	'Iʼm looking for students who are interested in linguistics.'

The primeless examples in (287) show that indefinite antecedents of restrictive relative clauses can also have a generic interpretation. When the semantic content of the head antecedent noun is small or predictable, these constructions are similar in meaning to semi-free relative constructions or constructions with nonspecific third person pronoun antecedents. Examples of both are given in the primed examples in (287).

287

a.	Een student	die	bij mij college	loopt,	moet	hard werken.
	a student	who	with me class	walks	must	hard work
	'A student who attends my classes has to work hard.'

a'.		Degene/Hij	die	bij mij	college	loopt,	moet	hard werken.
		the.one/he	who	with me	class	walks	must	hard work

b.	Studenten	die	bij mij	college	lopen,	moeten	hard werken.
	students	who	with me	class	walk	must	hard work
	'Students who attend my classes have to work hard.'

b'.		Degenen/Zij	die	college	bij mij	lopen,	moeten	hard werken.
		those/they	who	class	with me	walk	must	hard work

[+] II. The positions of antecedent and relative clause

Relative clauses always follow their antecedent. Although we will see shortly that they need not be adjacent to it, in most cases the relative clause does immediately follow the antecedent. Some examples are given in (288).

288

a.	[De man [RC	die	naast mij	woont]]	speelt	goed	piano.
	the man	who	next.to me	lives	plays	well	piano
	'The man who lives next to me plays the piano well.'

b.	Ik	heb	gisteren	[de man [RC	die	naast me	woont]]	ontmoet.
	I	have	yesterday	the man	who	next.to me	lives	met
	'I met the man who lives next to me yesterday.'

c.	Ze	hebben	[de actrice [RC	die in deze film speelt]]	een Oscar	toegekend.
	they	have	the actress	who in this film plays	an Oscar	awarded
	'They have awarded the actress who stars in this film an Oscar.'

That the relative clause need not immediately follow the antecedent can be seen from example (289), in which the relative clause is in extraposed position. Extraposition of the relative clause is quite common, due to the tendency to place salient or heavy information in sentence-final position.

289

		Ik	heb	gisteren	de man	ontmoet [RC	die	naast me	woont].
		I	have	yesterday	the man	met	who	next.to me	lives

It is normally not possible, however, to split the antecedent and the relative clause by means of leftward movement of the antecedent: the (a)-examples of (290) show that scrambling of the antecedent must pied-pipe the relative clause, and the (b)-examples show that the same thing holds for topicalization.

290

Ik heb de man [die naast me woont] gisteren ontmoet.

a'.

Ik heb de man gisteren [die naast me woont] ontmoet.

De man [die naast me woont] heb ik gisteren ontmoet.

b'.

De man heb ik gisteren [die naast me woont] ontmoet.

Note that the ban on scrambling and topicalization of the antecedent normally also holds if the relative clause is in extraposed position. The unacceptability of the examples in (291) may be a special instantiation of the so-called freezing principle, that is, the more general rule that extraction from a moved phrase is excluded. There may, however, be more to it since we will see in Subsection D that wh-movement of the antecedent is sometimes possible with extraposed relative clauses.

291

Ik heb de man gisteren ontmoet [die naast me woont].

De man heb ik gisteren ontmoet [die naast me woont].

In what follows we will consider in more detail the constructions in which the relative clause is in extraposed position or the antecedent is moved leftward. In all cases, the notion of focus will play a crucial role: extraposition is only acceptable if the relative clause contains focal information, while topicalization/wh-movement is only possible in those cases in which the antecedent carries focus. We will end with a discussion of constructions with personal pronoun antecedents, which form an exception to the general observation that it is possible to topicalize both antecedent and relative clause.

[+] A. Extraposition and the syntactic function of the antecedent

Extraposition of the relative clause does not seem to depend on the syntactic function of the full noun phrase, although there are certain factors that may interfere. The following subsections will discuss a number of cases.

[+] 1. Extraposition from direct and indirect object

First, the examples in (292) show that extraposition from direct object DPs is possible. This, of course, does not imply that extraposition is always possible: Subsection B, for example, will show that extraposition from the direct object requires that the relative clause contains salient/new information and Subsection D that the antecedent has not been scrambled, that is, belongs to the focus (new information) of the clause.

292

a.	Ik	heb	de film	gezien [RC	die	vorige week	zoʼn goede recensie	kreeg].
	I	have	the film	seen	that	last week	such a good review	got
	'Iʼve seen the film which got such a good review last week.'

b.	Mijn neef	heeft	een tekening	gekocht [RC	die Rembrandt	in 1643	maakte].
	my cousin	has	a drawing	bought	that Rembrandt	in 1643	made
	'My cousin has bought a drawing that Rembrandt made in 1643.'

The examples in (293) show that extraposition from a prepositional indirect object is also easily possible.

293

a.	Ik	heb	hetzelfde advies	aan de man	gegeven [RC	die naast mij woont].
	I	have	the.same advice	to the man	given	who next.to me lives
	'I gave the same advice yesterday to the man who lives next to me.'

b.	Ik wil advies	aan iemand	vragen [RC	die	verstand	heeft	van kunst].
	I want advice	to someone	ask	who	knowledge	has	of art
	'I want to ask the advice of someone who knows about art.'

This does not hold, however, for the nominal indirect objects in (294): the (a)- and (b)-examples in (294) show that extraposition of the relative is possible but only if the direct object is moved to a position preceding the indirect object. It seems that this fact has to do with the definiteness of the direct object, given that example (294b) much improves if we replace the demonstrative by the indefinite noun phrase advies'advice'; this is shown in (294c).

294

a.	??	Ik	heb	de man	hetzelfde advies	gegeven [RC	die	naast mij	woont].
		I	have	the man	the.same advice	given	who	next.to me	lives
		'I gave the same advice yesterday to the man who lives next to me.'

a'.

Hetzelfde advies heb ik de man gegeven [RC die naast mij woont].

b.	*	Ik	wil	iemand	dit	vragen [RC	die	verstand	heeft	van kunst].
		I	want	someone	this	ask	who	knowledge	has	of art
		'I want to ask this of someone who knows about art.'

b'.

Dit wil ik iemand vragen [RC die verstand heeft van kunst].

c.	Ik	wil	iemand	advies	vragen [RC	die	verstand	heeft	van kunst].
	I	want	someone	advice	ask	who	knowledge	has	of art
	'I want to ask the advice of someone who knows about art.'

Example (295) shows that the acceptability of extraposition from a direct object may likewise be influenced by the presence of material to the right of the direct object. The examples in (295) show that it is easier to extract a restrictive relative clause from a direct object in a double object construction if the direct object is preceded by a nominal indirect object than if it is followed by a prepositional indirect object.

295

a.	Jan	heeft	Peter het boek [RC	dat	zoʼn goede recensie	had]	gegeven.
	Jan	has	Peter the book	that	such a good review	has	given
	'Jan has given Peter the book that received such a good review.'

a'.

Jan heeft Peter het boek gegeven [RC dat zoʼn goede recensie had].

b.	Jan	heeft	het boek [RC	dat	zoʼn goede recensie	had]	aan Peter	gegeven.
	Jan	has	the book	that	such a good review	had	to Peter	given
	'Jan has given the book that received such a good review to Peter.'

b'.

Jan heeft dat boek aan Peter gegeven [RC dat zoʼn goede recensie had].

[+] 2. Extraposition from prepositional complement

Example (296a) shows that extraposition from PP-complements of a verb is fully acceptable, just like extraposition from prepositional indirect objects in (293). The same thing seems to hold for extraposition from the PP-complement of a noun or an adjective, although some people may consider examples like these somewhat marked, which may be related to the fact that the primeless examples compete with the primed examples in which the complete PP-complement is in extraposed position.

296

a.	dat	Jan	op de man	wachtte [RC	die hem naar huis zou brengen].
	that	Jan	on the man	waited	who him to house would bring
	'that Jan was waiting for the man who would take him home.'

a'.

dat Jan wachtte [PP op de man [RC die hem naar huis zou brengen]].

b.	(?)	dat	ik	bewondering	voor de man	heb [RC	die dit mogelijk heeft gemaakt].
		that	I	admiration	for the man	have	who this possible has made
		'that I have admiration for the man who has made this possible.'

b'.

dat ik bewondering heb voor de man [RC die dit mogelijk heeft gemaakt]].

c.	(?)	dat	ik	vreselijk boos	op de man	ben [RC	die naast mij woont].
		that	I	terribly angry	on the man	am	who next.to me lives
		'that Iʼm extremely angry at the man who lives next to me.'

c'.

dat ik vreselijk boos ben [PP op de man [RC die naast mij woont]].

[+] 3. Extraposition from subject

The primeless examples in (297) show that extraposition of a relative clause from a subject also yields a fully acceptable result. Extraposition is prohibited, however, if the subject occupies the regular subject position right-adjacent to the complementizer (or finite verb), which is clear from the fact that the corresponding primed examples are degraded under neutral intonation.

297

a.	dat	er	een man	naast me	woont [RC	die prachtig piano speelt].
	that	there	a man	next.to me	lives	who beautifully piano plays
	'that there lives a man next to me who plays the piano beautifully.'

a'.

dat een man naast me woont [RC die prachtig piano speelt].

b.	dat	gewoonlijk	die mensen	worden	gekozen [RC	die goed piano spelen].
	that	usually	those people	are	chosen	who well piano play
	'that only those people are chosen who play the piano well.'

b'.

dat die mensen gewoonlijk worden gekozen die prachtig piano spelen.

The reason for this contrast is probably related to the information structure of the clause. Subsection B will show that extraposition of relative clauses requires the noun phrase to be focal, whereas subjects in the regular subject position are typically the topic of discourse; subjects that are part of the new information of the clause normally occupy some more rightward position in the clause, following clausal adverbs like gewoonlijk in (297b). In this sense the contrast concerning the subject in the primeless and primed examples is completely parallel to those between non-scrambled and scrambled objects; cf. Broekhuis 2007/2008: ch.4. In generative grammar, this parallel is accounted for by assuming that, just like the scrambled position of an object, the regular subject position is a derived position; the base position of the subject is claimed to be lower in the structure as part of the lexical projection of the verb (VP), whereas the regular position is part of the functional structure of the clause (IP).

[+] 4. Extraposition from PP-adjunct

Extraposition from a PP-adjunct also seems acceptable, though the result is occasionally marked. Some examples are given in (298), which involve, respectively, a commitative, a spatial, and a temporal adverbial phrase. Note that the markedness of the primeless examples may again have something to do with the fact that they compete with the primed examples in which the complete adverbial PP is in extraposed position.

298

a.	(?)	Dat	heb	ik	met de man	afgesproken [RC	die	naast mij	woont].
		that	have	I	with the man	agreed	who	next.to me	lives
		'That Iʼve agreed with the man who lives next to me.'

a'.

Dat heb ik afgesproken [PP met de man [RC die naast mij woont]].

b.	?	Moeder	wil	niet	dat	Jan in het huis	speelt [RC	dat gesloopt wordt].
		mther	want	not	that	Jan in the house	plays	that pulled.down is
		'Mother doesnʼt want Jan to play in the house that is being pulled down.'

b'.

Moeder wil niet dat Jan speelt [PP in het huis [RC dat gesloopt wordt]].

c.	?	Ik wil	dat	voor de vergadering	bespreken [RC	die	straks	plaats	vindt].
		I want	that	before the meeting	discuss	that	later	place	takes
		'I want to discuss that before the meeting that takes place later.'

c'.

Ik wil dat bespreken [PP voor de vergadering [RC die straks plaats vindt]].

[+] B. Extraposition and information structure

The notion of focus seems to be at the core of the phenomenon of extraposition of relative clauses. Extraposition is possible in those cases where the relative clause contains focal information; cf. Guéron (1980). It may be that the relative clause carries emphatic or contrastive focus, as discussed in Subsection 1 below, but the information in the relative clause may also simply be new or otherwise salient. Subsection 2 shows that the preference for extraposition also correlates with the length or weight of the relative clause, which is not surprising given that the information tends to be more salient in lengthy phrases. In Subsection 3 we will see that extraposition of the relative clause is favored if the entire DP is indefinite, which, again, will not come as a surprise given that indefinite DPs are more likely to contain new or otherwise focal information than definite DPs. Subsection 4, finally, briefly considers the possibility of multiple extraposed relative clauses.

[+] 1. Emphatic and contrastive focus

The examples in (299) show that in some cases (for example, when the relative clause is not too long) the relative clause can appear both adjacent to its antecedent and in extraposed position. The difference between the two orders can usually be accounted for in terms of end focus, that is, by appealing to the general tendency of having the focal elements in sentence-final position: in (299a) the relative clause will be interpreted as containing the new or focal information, and will, as such, be given main emphasis; in (299b), on the other hand, the most neutral reading is one in which both the relative clause and the past participle ontmoet'met' are expressing new information, and both are given main emphasis.

299

a.	Ik	heb	daarnet	voor het eerst	de man	ontmoet	[die naast mij woont].
	I	have	just now	for the first	the man	met	who next.to me lives
	'Iʼve met just now the man who lives next to me for the first time.'

Ik heb daarnet voor het eerst de man [die naast mij woont] ontmoet.

The examples in (300) show that extraposition is strongly preferred if the relative clause carries contrastive focus: the order in (300b) is only acceptable with accent on the past participle, an option that is not available in the contrastive example given.

300

a.	Ik	heb	een boek	gekocht	[dat	over WO II	gaat]	(niet over WO I).
	I	have	a book	bought	which	about WW II	goes	not about WW I
	'Iʼve bought a book which deals with WW II (not about WW I).'

Ik heb een boek [dat over WO II gaat] gekocht (niet over WO I).

[+] 2. Weight of the relative clause

The preference for extraposition correlates with the length of the relative clause: the longer the relative clause, the larger the preference for its placement in sentence-final position. Thus, the order in (301a), with the lengthy relative clause in extraposed position, feels more natural than the order in (301b), with the relative clause adjacent to the antecedent.

301

heb

daarnet

voor het eerst

de man

ontmoet

[die

een maand geleden

naast mij

is komen

wonen].

have

just now

for the first time

the man

met

who

a month ago

next.to me

is come

live

'I just met for the first time the man who came to live next door a month ago.'

Ik heb daarnet voor het eerst de man [die een maand geleden naast mij is komen wonen] ontmoet.

Once again, end focus is at work here: the longer the relative clause, the more likely it is that it will contain new or otherwise salient information. This also means that length in itself is not always enough to make extraposition of the relative clause possible. Thus, there may be other weighty or salient information present in the sentence with which the relative clause has to compete for the sentence-final position. An example is given in (302), in which extraposition of the relative clause is barred by a relatively weighty VP uitnodigen voor een kopje koffie.

302

a.	Ik	heb	de man	[die	een maand geleden	naast mij	is komen	wonen]	uitgenodigd	voor een kopje koffie.
	I	have	the man	who	a month	next.to me	is come	live	invited	for a cup of coffee
	'Iʼve invited over for a cup of coffee the man who came to live next door a month ago.'

Ik heb de man uitgenodigd voor een kopje koffie [die een maand geleden naast mij is komen wonen].

[+] 3. Definiteness

The question as to whether or not there is a preference for extraposition of the relative clause also depends on the definiteness of the antecedent: the (a)-examples in (303) show that with definite antecedents both orders are acceptable, whereas the (b)-examples show that with indefinite antecedent extraposition is clearly preferred. If the antecedent is an existential quantifier like iemand'someone', as in the (c)-examples, the contrast seems even clearer. These observations are, of course, in accordance with the assumption that extraposition requires the presence of focus, as indefinite DPs are more likely to contain focal/new information than definite ones.

303

a.	Ik	heb	gisteren	de man [RC	die	prachtig	piano speelt]	ontmoet.
	I	have	yesterday	the man	who	beautifully	piano plays	met
	'Yesterday I met the man who plays the piano beautifully.'

a'.

Ik heb gisteren de man ontmoet die prachtig piano speelt.

b.	?	Ik	heb	gisteren	een man [RC	die	prachtig	piano speelt]	ontmoet.
		I	have	yesterday	a man	who	beautifully	piano plays	met
		'Yesterday I met a man who plays the piano beautifully.'

b'.

Ik heb gisteren een man ontmoet die prachtig piano speelt.

c.	??	Ik	heb	gisteren	iemand [RC	die	prachtig	piano speelt]	ontmoet.
		I	have	yesterday	someone	who	beautifully	piano plays	met
		'Yesterday I met someone who plays the piano beautifully.'

c'.

Ik heb gisteren iemand ontmoet die prachtig piano speelt.

A similar contrast can be found for subjects in expletive constructions: since the subject receives a nonspecific indefinite interpretation in these constructions, we expect extraposition to be the preferred option. That this expectation is indeed borne out is illustrated in (304) by means of, respectively, an intransitive and an unaccusative construction.

304

a.	??	dat	er	zes mensen [RC	die	in vaste dienst	zijn]	werken.
		that	there	six people	who	in permanent employment	are	work
		'Six people who hold a permanent position are working there.'

a'.

dat er zes mensen werken die in vaste dienst zijn.

b.	?	Er zijn	zes mensen [RC	die	in vaste dienst	waren]	ontslagen.
		there are	six people	who	in permanent employment	were	fired

b'.

Er zijn zes mensen ontslagen die in vaste dienst waren.

[+] 4. Multiple relative clauses in extraposed position

Differences in acceptability of extraposition of relative clauses also occur in those cases in which two restrictive relative clauses are in extraposed position, one extracted from a direct object, and one from a subject. The result of such extraposition is clearly unacceptable in those cases in which the relative clause extracted from the subject precedes the one extracted from the direct object, as in (305b'). Where the relative clause extracted from the subject follows that extracted from the direct object, as in (305b), the result is slightly better, but still highly questionable; cf. Rochemont & Culicover (1997: 280) for similar English data.

305

dat

een student [RC1

die

interesse

heeft

in taalkunde]

een artikel [RC2

dat

had uitgedeeld]

gelezen

heeft

that

a student

who

interest

has

in linguistics

an article

that

had handed.out

read

has

'that a student who is interested in linguistics read the article Iʼd handed out.'

dat een student een artikel gelezen heeft [RC2 dat ik had uitgedeeld] [RC1 die interesse heeft in taalkunde].

b'.

dat een student een artikel heeft gelezen [RC1 die interesse in taalkunde heeft] [RC2 dat ik had uitgedeeld].

The contrast becomes clearer in (306) if the subject is given extra emphasis. Two cases can be distinguished. Example (306a) involves contrastive focus, and has the implication that there are other students who have read the article but that they are not interested in linguistics. Example (306b) involves restrictive focus, and implies that there is only one student interested in linguistics and that only that one student has read the article. The order of the relative clauses in the primeless examples seems to give rise to a fully grammatical result (although the sentences may remain hard to process), whereas the order of the relative clauses in the primed examples is completely excluded.

306

a.	dat	slechts één student	het artikel	heeft gelezen [RC2	dat ik uitgedeeld had]	[RC1	die interesse	heeft	in taalkunde].
	that	only one student	the article	has read	that I handed.out had	[RC1	who interest	has	in linguistics
	'that (only) one student has read the article Iʼd handed out who is interested in linguistics.'

a'.

dat (slechts) één student het artikel heeft gelezen [RC1 die interesse in taalkunde heeft] [RC2 dat ik uitgedeeld had].

b.	dat	alleen die student	het artikel	gelezen	heeft [RC2	dat ik had uitgedeeld]	[RC1	die interesse	heeft	in taalkunde].
	that	only that student	the article	read	has	that I had handed.out	[RC1	who interest	has	in linguistics
	'that only that student has read the article Iʼd handed out who is interested in linguistics.'

b'.

dat (alleen) die student het artikel heeft gelezen [RC1 die interesse in taalkunde heeft] [RC2 dat ik uitgedeeld had].

[+] C. Leftward movement of the antecedent

Subsection B has shown that the restrictive relative clause and its antecedent can be split by extraposition of the relative clause. In principle, this split pattern could also arise as the result of leftward movement of the antecedent by means of, for example, scrambling or topicalization with stranding of the relative clause in the original position of the noun phrase. The examples in (307) and (308) show, however, that this is not an option: (307) shows that scrambling of the direct object is possible but requires pied piping of the restrictive relative clause and (308) show the same thing for topicalization.

307

a.	Hij	heeft	de man [RC	die	naast me	woont]	gisteren	ontmoet.
	he	has	the man	who	next.to me	lives	yesterday	met
	'He met the man who lives next to me yesterday.'

Hij heeft de man gisteren [RC die naast me woont] ontmoet.

308

a.	De man [RC	die	naast me	woont]	heeft	hij	gisteren	ontmoet.
	the man	who	next.to me	lives	has	he	yesterday	met
	'The man who lives next to me, he met yesterday.'

De man heeft hij gisteren [RC die naast me woont] ontmoet.

Although in the case of wh-movement, pied piping never leads to a fully acceptable result (see also the discussion of examples (313) and (314) in Subsection D), the examples in (309) still clearly show that pied piping is strongly preferred to stranding of the relative clause.

309

a.	??	Welke man [RC	die	naast me	woont]	heeft	hij	gisteren	ontmoet?
		which man	who	next.to me	lives	has	he	yesterday	met
		'Which of the men who live next to me did he meet yesterday?'

Welke man heeft hij gisteren [RC die naast me woont] ontmoet?

The data above, which can be readily replicated for noun phrases with a syntactic function other than direct object, clearly show that stranding of the relative clause by leftward movement of the antecedent is excluded.

[+] D. Extraposition and leftward movement of the antecedent

Subsection A has shown that extraposition of restrictive relative clauses is possible from all types of syntactic constituents, and Subsection C has shown that it is not possible to strand the relative clause by leftward movement: the relative clause is normally pied-piped. This still leaves open the possibility that the noun phrase is split by simultaneously extraposing the relative clause and leftward movement of the antecedent. This subsection will show that the acceptability of the resulting structure depends on the type of leftward movement involved: it is excluded in the case of scrambling, sometimes marginally possible with topicalization, and pretty common with wh-movement. The fact that the pattern is possible in the case of wh-movement suggests that an account in terms of the freezing principle (the more general restriction that extraction from a moved phrase is excluded), is not in order. It therefore seems that we have to appeal to the information structural effect of the leftward movement.

[+] 1. Scrambling and Topicalization

The examples in (310) show that extraposition of a restrictive relative clause from a direct object is possible, provided that the antecedent of the relative clause has not been scrambled or topicalized.

310

a.	Ik	heb	nog	nooit	de man	ontmoet [RC	die	naast me	woont].
	I	have	still	never	the man	met	who	next.to me	lives
	'So far, Iʼve never met the man who lives next to me.'

Ik heb de mani nog nooit ti ontmoet [RC die naast me woont].

De mani heb ik nog nooit ti ontmoet [RC die naast me woont].

Often, this is described in terms of freezing: a phrase that has been moved (the scrambled/topicalized noun phrase) is an island for extraction (extraposition of the relative clause). Appealing to the freezing principle is problematic, however, given that we will see in the next subsection that wh-movement of the antecedent is possible if the relative clause is in extraposed position. For this reason it seems better to appeal to the information structural effects of scrambling and topicalization. Since the type of scrambling we are discussing here is only possible with noun phrases that are part of the presupposition ( 'old' information) of the clause, we can exclude extraposition in (310b) by appealing to our earlier conclusion in Subsection B that the noun phrase must be sufficiently focal in order to license extraposition. Given the fact that topicalization generally involves discourse topics we can provide a similar account for the impossibility of (310c).
It should be noted, however, that scambled and topicalized phrases can sometimes be contrastively focused; although judgments on the precise status may differ among speakers, on this reading examples like (310b&c) become more acceptable. The relative acceptability of the examples in (311) provides direct support for the claim that an account in terms of the information structural properties of the movements involved is superior to an account in terms of freezing.

311

a.	%	Ik heb de man nog nooit ontmoet [RC	die	naast me	woont];	de vrouw wel.
		I have the man stil never met	who	next.to me	lives	the woman aff

b.	%	De man heb ik	nog nooit	ontmoet [RC	die naast mij woont];	de vrouw wel.
		the man have I	yet never	met	who next.to me lives;	the woman aff
		'I havenʼt met the man yet who lives next to me, but I have met the woman.'

[+] 2. Wh-movement

That an account in terms of freezing is not adequate is also clear from the fact that it is easily possible to simultaneously have wh-movement of the antecedent and extraposition of the relative clause. The discontinuous construction in (312a), for instance, is clearly preferred to the one in (312b), in which wh-movement applies to the DP as a whole. The data in (312) are consistent with the information structural account given that wh-phrases are focal by definition.

312

a.	Hoeveel mensen	heb	jij	ontmoet [RC	die	echt	goed	piano	spelen]?
	how.many people	have	you	met	who	really	well	piano	play
	'How many people have you met who play the piano really well?'

Hoeveel mensen [RC die echt goed piano spelen] heb jij ontmoet?

However, not all questioned constructions allow extraposition of the relative clause. In order to allow this the wh-phrase may not be D-linked, that is, it may not presuppose that the set of questioned entities is non-empty in domain D. This requirement is indeed met in (312); this question does not presuppose that there are persons in domain D that play the piano well. A minimal contrast arises if we replace the wh-phrase in these examples by the partitive phrase hoeveel van de mensen [RC die echt goed piano spelen]'how many of the people that play the piano well'.

313

a.	??	Hoeveel van de mensen	heb	jij	ontmoet [RC	die echt goed piano spelen]?
		how.many of the people	have	you	met	who really well piano play
		'How many people have you met who play the piano really well?'

Hoeveel van de mensen [RC die echt goed piano spelen] heb jij ontmoet?

The examples in (313) presuppose that domain D contains a non-empty set of people that play the piano well, and as a result the split pattern is worse than the unsplit one. Wh-phrases headed by the interrogative determiner welke are also D-linked, and again the result of splitting the noun phrase is a degraded result.

314

a.		Welke mensen [RC	die	in het orkest	spelen]	heb	jij	ontmoet?
		which people	who	in the orchestra	play	have	you	met

Welke mensen heb jij ontmoet [RC die in het orkest spelen]?

The fact that wh-movement of a D-linked antecedent is not allowed is again in line with the general assumption that preposed antecedents must be focal: although wh-phrases are focal by definition, the D-linked ones presuppose knowledge of a particular set related to domain D and are as such less focal than their non-presupposed counterparts. Extraposition is also less acceptable in example (315), which is again due to the fact that in this case the wh-phrase is D-linked (which is clear from the use of the definite noun phrase het orkest'the orchestra'). Note that (315b) becomes acceptable if the antecedent carries emphatic or contrastive focus, but in that case the construction is likely to be used as an echo-question

315

a.	Hoeveel mensen [RC	die in het orkest spelen]	hebben	je	uitgenodigd?
	how.many	who in the orchestra play	have	you	invited
	'How many people who play in the orchestra have invited you?'

Hoeveel mensen hebben je uitgenodigd [RC die in het orkest spelen]?

Hoeveel mensen

hebben

jou

uitgenodigd [RC

die in het orkest spelen]?

Example (312b) shows that the split pattern is preferred if the interrogative noun phrase has the syntactic function of object. The same thing holds for the subject of an expletive construction, although in this case the contrast between the split and the unsplit pattern is less pronounced. This is illustrated in (316a&b) for, respectively, intransitive and unaccusative constructions.

316

a.	?	Hoeveel mensen [RC	die	in vaste dienst	zijn]	werken	er?
		how.many people	who	in permanent employment	are	work	there
		'How many people are working there who hold permanent jobs?'

a'.

Hoeveel mensen werken er die in vaste dienst zijn?

b.	Hoeveel mensen [RC	die	in vaste dienst	waren]	zijn er ontslagen?
	how.many people	who	in permanent employment	were	are there fired
	'How many people have been fired who held permanent jobs?'

b'.

Hoeveel mensen zijn er vertrokken die in vaste dienst waren?

[+] 3. Conclusion

This subsection has shown that leftward movement of the antecedent is possible if the relative clause is in extraposed position, but that this option is restricted by the information structural condition that the complex noun phrase is sufficiently focal; cf. Subsection B. The fact that wh-movement is possible if the restrictive relative clause is extraposed unambiguously shows that an analysis in terms of freezing cannot be upheld. This is in line with more recent approaches to extraposition that reject the claim implied by the freezing account that scrambling and topicalization intrinsically precede extraposition. Such proposals reanalyze extraposition as stranding: the object is claimed to be base-generated in postverbal position, and what seems to be extraposition of the relative clause is actually stranding of the relative clause in the base-position of the object; cf. Kayne (1994). Note that such an analysis would still allow us to appeal to the freezing principle in order to account for the ungrammaticality of leftward movement with stranding of the relative clause in preverbal position (cf. the discussion in Subsection C), since in that case the relative clause would be stranded in the derived preverbal position of the object. Another strand of research that is compatable with the findings in this subsection assumes that the postverbal phrase has never been part of the preverbal phrase but is generated as an independent phrase; see Koster (2000), De Vries (2002:ch.7/2011) and references cited there for interesting proposals of this sort.

[+] E. A special case: personal pronoun antecedents

Although Subsection D has shown that in the general case topicalization of the antecedent pied-pipes the restrictive relative clause, this subsection shows that this does not always hold if the antecedent is a personal pronoun. First, recall that Subsection IA has shown that the syntactic function of the modified personal pronoun and that of the relative pronoun need not be the same. Examples such as (317), in which the personal pronoun functions as the object of the matrix clause and the relative pronoun as the subject of the relative clause, are acceptable as long as the object form of the personal pronoun is used.

317

a.	Ik	heb	hem/*hij [RC	die	daar	binnenkomt]	niet eerder	gezien.
	I	have	him/he	who	there	prt.-enters	not before	seen
	'Iʼve never seen him who has just come in before.'

b.	Ze	hebben	haar/*zij [RC	die	de hoofdrol	speelde]	een Oscar	toegekend.
	they	have	her/she	who	the leading part	played	an Oscar	prt.-awarded
	'They have awarded her who played the leading part an Oscar.'

Topicalization of the complete direct object is strongly preferred in those cases in which the antecedent and the relative pronoun have the same syntactic function. Thus the constructions in (318a&b), in which the antecedent hem'him' and the relative pronoun die both function as direct objects, are fully acceptable; the same thing is true of example (318c), in which the antecedent pronoun and the relative pronoun both function as indirect objects. The split patterns in the primed examples are marked compared to the unsplit one (but of course acceptable under a non-restrictive reading, in which case the relative clause is preceded by an intonation break).

318

a.	Hem [RC	die ze ontslagen hebben],	ken	ik	niet	persoonlijk.
	him	who they fired have	know	I	not	personally
	'Him they have fired I donʼt know personally.'

a'.

Hem ken ik niet persoonlijk [RC die ze ontslagen hebben].

b.	Hem [RC	die	Marie	aan me	voorstelde],	had	ik	nooit	eerder	gezien.
	him	who	Marie	to me	introduced	had	I	never	before	seen
	'Him who Marie has introduced to me Iʼd never seen before.'

b'.

Hem had ik nooit eerder gezien [RC die Marie aan me voorstelde].

c.	Haar [RC	die een Oscar heeft gekregen],	heeft	hij	een nieuwe rol	aangeboden.
	her	who an Oscar has won	has	he	a new part	prt.-offered
	'Her who they have awarded an Oscar they have offered a new part.'

c'.

Haar heeft hij een nieuwe rol aangeboden [RC die een Oscar heeft gekregen].

If, however, the antecedent pronoun fulfills the function of object and the relative pronoun the function of subject, topicalization of the full noun phrase gives rise to a highly marked result, regardless of the form of the personal pronoun; note, however, that the subject form of the personal pronoun seems to give rise to a better result in these examples than in (317). As can be seen in the primed examples, the split pattern gives rise to a considerably better result in these cases than the unsplit one, provided that the antecedent has the form of an object pronoun: use of the subject form hij/zij is completely excluded.

319

a.	*?	Hem/Hij [RC	die	daar	binnenkomt]	heb	ik	niet eerder	gezien.
		him/he	who	there	prt.-enters	have	I	not before	seen

a'.

(?)

Hem heb ik niet eerder gezien [RC die daar binnenkomt].

b.	??	Hem/Hij [RC	die	hier	al tien jaar	werkt]	willen	we	niet	ontslaan.
		him/he	who	here	already ten years	works	want	we	not	fire
		'Him we donʼt want to fire whoʼs worked here for ten years.'

b'.

Hem willen we niet ontslaan [RC die hier al tien jaar werkt].

c.	??	Haar/Zij [RC	die de hoofdrol speelde]	hebben	ze	een Oscar	toegekend.
		her/she	who the leading role played	have	they	an Oscar	awarded

c'.

Haar hebben ze een Oscar toegekend [RC die de hoofdrol speelde].

In other cases in which the personal and relative pronoun fulfill different syntactic functions, topicalization of the full noun phrase is fully acceptable. In (320a), for example, the personal and the relative pronoun have the syntactic function of direct and indirect object, respectively, and the result seems fine. In (320), the situation is reversed, and again the result is acceptable. In contrast, the split patterns are degraded.

320

a.	Hem [RC	die	ze	bijna	niet	kennen]	hebben ze een uitnodiging gestuurd.
	him	who	they	almost	not	know,	have they an invitation sent
	'Him who they hardly know at all they have sent an invitation.'

a'.

Hem hebben ze een uitnodiging gestuurd [RC die ze bijna niet kennen].

b.	Haar [RC	die ze een Oscar hebben toegekend]	bewonder	ik	erg.
	her	who they an Oscar have awarded	admire	I	much
	'Her who they have awarded an Oscar, I admire a lot.'

b'.

Haar

bewonder ik erg [RC die ze een Oscar hebben toegekend].

References:

Broekhuis, Hans2007Subject shift and object shiftJournal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics10109-141
Broekhuis, Hans2008Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languagesStudies in Generative GrammarBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
Guéron, Jacqueline1980On the syntax and semantics of PP extrapositionLinguistic Inquiry11637-678
Kayne, Richard S1994The antisymmetry of syntaxLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 25Cambridge, MAMIT Press
Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
Rochemont, Michael & Culicover, Peter1997Deriving right adjuncts in EnglishBeermann, Dorothee, LeBlanc, David & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Rightward movementAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaBenjamins
Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Vries, Mark de2011ExtrapositieNederlandse Taalkunde16273-295

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Antecedent of Relative PronounD-linkingDemonstrative PronounDistal Demonstrative PronounExpletive ConstructionExtrapositionFocusFreezingGenitiveGenitive Noun PhraseInformation StructureModificationNounObject PronounPartitivePartitive ConstructionPersonal PronounPossessive PronounPronounProper NounRelative PronounScramblingSubject PronounTopicalizationWh-movement

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles