• 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
      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).

    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  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.

    Example 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.

    Example 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).

    Example 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.

    Example 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.

    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.
      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).

    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.
      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).

    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.
      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.

    Example 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).

    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.
      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.

    Example 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.

    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].
      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.

    Example 293
    Prepositional indirect object
    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).

    Example 294
    Nominal indirect objects
    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.

    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].