• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
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.

Example 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
  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
  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  know
  'Jan is the best pianist that I know.'
f. Ik heb gisteren gedanst met de man [die daar woont].
adv. phrase
  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).

Example 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.

readmore
[+]  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.

Example 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.

Example 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).

Example 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.

Example 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.

Example 273
a. Het concert [waar ik gisteren naar toe ben geweest] was fantastisch.
  the concert  where  yesterday  to  toe  am  been  was fantastic
b. *? Dit concert [waar ik gisteren naar toe ben geweest] was fantastisch.
  this concert  where  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.

Example 274
a. Dit concert dat ik van hem heb bijgewoond was beter dan het vorige.
  this concert  that  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.

Example 275
a. Dat concert waar ik het gisteren over had, was fantastisch.
  that concert  where  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.
  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 lesss felicitously restricted by a relative clause in a contrastive context like (276c).

Example 276
a. * Mijn boek dat ik gisteren gekocht heb, was duur.
  my book  that  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.

Example 277
a. *? Ik die uit Nederland kom, ben wel gewend aan een nat klimaat.
  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.
  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.

Example 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.

Example 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).

Example 280
Third person pronouns with specific reference
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.
  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).

Example 281
Third person pronouns with nonspecific reference
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.

Example 282
Third person pronouns with universal reference
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.

Example 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.
  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).

Example 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.

Example 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.
  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.

Example 286
a. Ik ontmoette daar een paar mensen die ik nog van vroeger kende.
  met  there  a few people  who  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.
  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.
  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).

Example 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).

Example 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.
  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.

Example 289
Ik heb gisteren de man ontmoet [RC die naast me woont].
  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.

Example 290
a. Ik heb de man [die naast me woont] gisteren ontmoet.
a'. * Ik heb de man gisteren [die naast me woont] ontmoet.
b. 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.

Example 291
a. * Ik heb de man gisteren ontmoet [die naast me woont].
b. * 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.

Example 292
Direct object
a. Ik heb de film gezien [RC die vorige week zoʼn goede recensie kreeg].
  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.

Example 293
Prepositional indirect object
a. Ik heb hetzelfde advies aan de man gegeven [RC die naast mij woont].
  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).

Example 294
Nominal indirect objects
a. ?? Ik heb de man hetzelfde advies gegeven [RC die naast mij woont].
  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].
  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].
  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.

Example 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.

Example 296
Prepositional complements
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  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  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.

Example 297
Subject
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.

Example 298
Adverbial phrases
a. (?) Dat heb ik met de man afgesproken [RC die naast mij woont].
  that  have  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.

Example 299
a. Ik heb daarnet voor het eerst de man ontmoet [die naast mij woont].
  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.'
b. 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.

Example 300
a. Ik heb een boek gekocht [dat over WO II gaat] (niet over WO 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).'
b. ?? 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.

Example 301
a. Ik 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.'
b. ? 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.

Example 302
a. Ik heb de man [die een maand geleden naast mij is komen wonen] uitgenodigd voor een kopje koffie.
  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.'
b. *? 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.

Example 303
a. Ik heb gisteren de man [RC die prachtig piano speelt] ontmoet.
  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.
  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.
  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.

Example 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.

Example 305
a. dat een student [RC1 die interesse heeft in taalkunde] een artikel [RC2 dat ik 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.'
b. ?? 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.

Example 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  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 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.

Example 307
Scrambling
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.'
b. * Hij heeft de man gisteren [RC die naast me woont] ontmoet.
Example 308
Topicalization
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.'
b. * 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.

Example 309
Wh-movement
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?'
b. * 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.

Example 310
a. Ik heb nog nooit de man ontmoet [RC die naast me woont].
  have  still  never  the man  met  who  next.to me  lives
  'So far, Iʼve never met the man who lives next to me.'
b. * Ik heb de mani nog nooit ti ontmoet [RC die naast me woont].
c. * 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.

Example 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.

Example 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?'
b. *? 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'.

Example 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?'
b. 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.

Example 314
a. Welke mensen [RC die in het orkest spelen] heb jij ontmoet?
  which people  who  in the orchestra  play  have  you  met
b. ?? 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

Example 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?'
b. *? Hoeveel mensen hebben je uitgenodigd [RC die in het orkest spelen]?
c. 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.

Example 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.

Example 317
a. Ik heb hem/*hij [RC die daar binnenkomt] niet eerder gezien.
  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).

Example 318
a. Hem [RC die ze ontslagen hebben], ken ik niet persoonlijk.
  him  who they fired have  know  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  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.

Example 319
a. *? Hem/Hij [RC die daar binnenkomt] heb ik niet eerder gezien.
  him/he  who  there  prt.-enters  have  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.

Example 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  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
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
cite
print
This topic is the result of an automatic conversion from Word and may therefore contain errors.
A free Open Access publication of the corresponding volumes of the Syntax of Dutch is available at OAPEN.org.