Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

3.3.2.3.3.Non-restrictive relative clauses

quickinfo

The examples in (321) show that the antecedent of a non-restrictive relative clause can fulfill a variety of syntactic functions in the clause: subject, (in)direct object, PP-complement and adverbial phrase.

321

a.	Mijn broer, [RC	die goed piano speelt],	heeft	een prijs	gewonnen.
	my brother	who well piano plays	has	a prize	won
	'My brother, who plays the piano well, has won a prize.'

b.		Zij	feliciteerde	mijn broer, [RC	die goed piano speelt],	met zijn prijs.
		she	congratulated	my brother	who plays the piano well	with his prize

c.	Ze	hebben	mijn broer, [RC	die goed piano speelt],	de prijs	toegekend.
	they	have	my brother	who well piano plays	the prize	prt.-awarded
	'They have awarded my brother, who plays the piano well, the prize.'

d.		Ik	heb	naar mijn broer	geluisterd, [RC	die goed piano speelt].
		I	have	to my brother	listened	who well piano plays

e.		Ik	ga	naar een concert	met mijn broer, [RC	die goed piano speelt].
		I	go	to a concert been	with my brother	who well piano plays

Noun phrases modified by a non-restrictive relative clause can furthermore be used as complement or modifier within another noun phrase. This is illustrated in (322).

322

a.		Mijn bewondering	voor mijn broer, [RC	die goed piano speelt]	is groot.
		my admiration	for my brother	who well piano plays	is great

b.		De muziek	van mijn broer, [RC	die goed piano speelt],	is erg mooi.
		the music	of my brother	who well piano plays	is very beautiful

The only thing that is not readily possible is modification of a predicatively used noun phrase. This is not surprising, of course, given that non-restrictive relative clauses serve to provide more information about the referent set of the noun phrase. Since predicates do not refer, it follows immediately from this that a predicatively used noun phrase cannot be modified by a non-restrictive relative clause. This is illustrated in (323); a non-restrictive clause can only be used to provide additional information about the intended pianist if it is added to the subject of the construction, as in (323a); adding the relative clause to the nominal predicate, as in (323b), gives rise to an uninterpretable result. It should be noted, however, that this restriction does not hold if the relative clause is introduced by the predicative relative pronoun wat, which can take several types of predicates as its antecedent; cf. Section 3.3.2.2, sub IC5.

323

a.	Jani, [RC	diei	hier	vaak	speelt],	is [Pred	de beste pianist van Nederland].
	Jan	who	here	often	plays	is	the best pianist of the.Netherlands
	'Jan, who often plays here, is the best pianist of the Netherlands.'

a'.	*	Jan is [Pred	de beste pianist van Nederland]i, [RC	diei	hier	vaak	speelt].
		Jan is	the best pianist of the.Netherlands	who	here	often	plays

b.		Jan is een goede pianist/briljant [RC	wat	ik	niet	ben].
		Jan is a good pianist/brilliant	which	I	not	am

This issue will be discussed more extensively in Subsection I, which will discuss the meaning contribution of non-restrictive relative clauses. This is followed in Subsections II and III by discussions of the different types of non-restrictive relative clause, and the position of non-restrictive relative clauses and their antecedent in the clause.

I. The function of non-restrictive relative clauses
II. Different types of non-restrictive relative clauses
III. The positions of antecedent and relative clause

[+] I. The function of non-restrictive relative clauses

A non-restrictive relative clause serves to provide additional information about its antecedent, which means that the information provided in the relative clause is not required for the proper identification of the referent set of the antecedent; if the relative clauses in (321) and (322) above are left out, the result is less informative but grammatical and felicitous as the hearer can still be assumed to be able to identify the person the speaker is referring to (but see Section 3.3.2.3.3, sub II). Although non-restrictive relative clauses have this function of providing additional information regardless of the form of their 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 in separate subsections. A third subsection is added that discusses non-restrictive clauses that take an antecedent with a predicative function in the clause.

[+] A. Non-restrictive relative clauses with definite antecedents

As a logical result of their non-restrictive function, non-restrictive relative clauses can easily be used in combination with antecedents with unique referents. Since these referents can be assumed to be identifiable, the relative clauses need not, and typically cannot, contain identifying information. This is illustrated in (324) for an antecedent in the form of a proper noun, a noun with unique reference, and antecedents containing a demonstrative and possessive determiner.

324

a.	Rembrandt, [RC	die leefde van 1606 tot 1669],	is een groot schilder.
	Rembrandt	who lived from 1606 to 1669	is a great painter
	'Rembrandt, who lived from 1606 to 1669, is a great painter.'

b.	De zon, [RC	die hoog aan de hemel stond],	gaf	veel	warmte.
	the sun	which high in the sky stood	gave	much	warmth
	'The sun, which was high in the sky, gave a lot of heat.'

c.	Ik heb dit schilderij, [RC	dat	erg duur	was],	op een veiling	gekocht.
	I have this painting	which	very expensive	was	at an auction	bought
	'I bought this painting, which was very expensive, at an auction.'

d.	Mijn echtgenoot, [RC	die	tolk	is],	spreekt	zes talen.
	my husband,	who	interpreter	is,	speaks	six languages
	'My husband, who is an interpreter, speaks six languages.'

Non-restrictive relative clauses can also be used to modify personal pronouns, provided that they have the full, non-reduced form. If the antecedent and the relative pronoun have the same syntactic function in the matrix and the relative clause, such constructions are perfectly acceptable. This is illustrated in (325) for cases in which both the antecedent and the relative pronoun function as subjects; observe that the finite verb of the relative clause agrees in number with the antecedent pronoun.

325

a.	Hij, [RC	die	daar	zo mooi	piano	speelt3p.sg],	is mijn broer.
	he	who	there	so beautifully	piano	plays	is my brother
	'He, who is playing the piano so beautifully, is my brother.'

b.	Ik, [RC	die	altijd	voor je	heb1p.sg	klaar	gestaan],	heb dit niet verdiend.
	I	who	always	for you	have	ready	stood	have this not deserved
	'I, who was always ready to help you, havenʼt deserved this.'

c.	Zelfs jij, [RC	die	zoveel	hebt2p.sg	meegemaakt],	hebt	dit	nooit	gezien.
	even you	who	so much	has	experienced	has	this	never	seen
	'Even you, who has seen so much, has never seen such a thing.'

d.	Jullie, [RC	die	al	een geldig kaartje	hebbenpl],	mogen	nu	binnen.
	you	who	already	a valid ticket	have	may	now	inside
	'You, who already have a valid ticket, may enter immediately.'

In (326) the same thing is shown for object pronouns: the pronouns haar'her' and ons'us' function as direct objects in the matrix clauses, with the relative pronoun die fulfilling the same function in the relative clauses, and the result is fully acceptable.

326

a.	Ik	had	haar, [RC	die	ik	altijd	gemogen	heb],	graag	geholpen.
	I	had	her	who	I	always	liked	have	gladly	helped
	'I would gladly have helped her, whom Iʼve always liked.'

b.	Hij	had	ons, [RC	die	hij	nog nooit	gezien	had],	direct	herkend.
	he	had	us	who	he	yet never	seen	had	directly	recognized
	'He had immediately recognized us, whom he had never seen before.'

If the antecedent and the relative pronoun do not have the same syntactic function, the results are generally marked. The examples in (327) show this for cases in which the personal pronoun functions as a direct/indirect object of the matrix clause or the complement of a preposition, whereas the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause. In (327a&b), some speakers allow and even prefer the third singular form heeft to the first singular form heb.

327

a.	Hij heeft	mij, [RC	die	hem	toch	zo	geholpen	?heb1p.sg/%heeft3p.sg],	nooit	bedankt.
	he has	me	who	him	prt	so	helped	have/has	never	thanked
	'He has never thanked me, who helped him so much.'

Hij

heeft

mij, [RC

die

speciaal

gevraagd

?heb1p.sg/%heeft3p.sg],

een gesigneerd exemplaar

gegeven.

has

who

there

especially

for

asked

have/has

a signed copy

given

'He has given me, who especially asked for it, a signed copy.'

c.	?	Hij heeft	voor ons, [RC	die	zo hard gewerkt hebben],	niets	teruggedaan.
		he has	for us	who	so hard worked have	nothing	prt.-done
		'He has done nothing in return for us, who worked so hard.'

The examples in (328) show the same thing for cases in which the personal pronoun acts as the subject of the matrix clause and the relative pronoun as the direct or indirect object of the relative clause.

328

a.	?	Ik	vind	dat	ik, [RC	die ze ontslagen hebben],	recht heb	op een verklaring.
		I	find	that	I	who they fired have	right have	to an explanation
		'I think that I, who they have fired, have the right to an explanation.'

vind

dat

ik, [RC

die

hij

dat boek

gestuurd

heeft],

hem

moet

bedanken.

find

that

who

that book

sent

has

him

must

thank

'I think that I, who he has sent the book to, must thank him.'

The marked examples in (327) and (328) all involve cases in which the personal pronoun functions as a subject and the relative pronoun as an object, or vice versa. If they function respectively as a direct and an indirect object, the constructions are fully acceptable. Examples can be found in (329).

329

a.	Ze	hadden	onsIO, [RC	dieDO	ze	ontslagen	hebben],	een brief	gestuurd.
	they	had	us	who	they	fired	have	a letter	sent
	'They had sent us, who they fired, a letter.'

b.	Hij	zal	jouDO, [RC	(aan) wieIO	hij	veel	te danken	heeft],	graag	helpen.
	he	has	you	to whom	he	much	to thank	has	gladly	help
	'He would be glad to help you, (to) who(m) he owes a great deal.'

The data involving personal pronoun antecedents suggest that the personal pronoun can act as the antecedent of a relative pronoun with a different syntactic function as long as the personal pronoun has the morphological form that “matches” the syntactic function of the relative pronoun: if this is not the case, a marked result arises. This would account for the fact that the examples in (330) are fully acceptable despite the fact that the plural pronoun jullie'you' acts as the subject in the main clause whereas the relative pronoun acts respectively as a direct object, an indirect object and the complement of a preposition. This could be attributed to the fact that the form jullie can be used in all these functions. We will return to pronouns modified by a non-restrictive relative clause in Subsection IIID.

330

a.	Jullie, [RC	die	ik	zo veel	geholpen	heb],	hebben	duidelijk	gefaald.
	you	who	I	so much	helped	have	have	clearly	failed
	'You, who I have helped so much, have clearly failed.'

b.	Jullie, [RC	die	ik	zo veel hulp	gegeven heb],	hebben	duidelijk	gefaald.
	you	who	I	so much help	given have	have	clearly	failed
	'You, who I have helped so much, have clearly failed.'

c.		Jullie [RC	op wie	ik	zo	vertrouwde]	hebben	duidelijk	gefaald.
		you	on whom	I	so	relied	have	clearly	failed

[+] B. Non-restrictive relative clauses with indefinite antecedents

The examples in (331) show that non-restrictive relative clauses can also have an indefinite antecedent, that is, an antecedent the referent of which is assumed not to be identifiable for the hearer. The relative clauses do not function to restrict the set of possible referents, but simply provide extra information about the referent of the antecedent.

331

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

b.	Ik heb	een boek	geleend	aan wat studenten, [RC	die	mijn college	volgen].
	I have	a book	lent	to some students	who	my classes	follow
	'Iʼve lent a book to some students, all of whom attend my classes.'

In (331), the antecedent is interpreted specifically; the identity of the intended referent(s) is known to the speaker but not to the hearer. Indefinite antecedents of non-restrictive relative clauses can also be generic, as in (332), in which case the relative clause will be interpreted as providing generic information; both in the case of a plural and in the case of a singular antecedent, the information given in the relative clause must be taken to apply to the entire class of entities denoted by the antecedent, that is, to all students.

332

a.	Studenten, [RC	die	meestal	weinig geld	hebben],	hebben	vaak	een baantje.
	students	who	usually	little money	have	have	often	a jobdim
	'Students, who usually have little money, often have a part-time job.'

b.	Een student, [RC	die	vaak	weinig geld	heeft],	heeft	meestal	een baantje.
	a student	who	often	little money	has	has	mostly	a jobdim
	'A student, who mostly has little money, usually has a part-time job.'

It is less clear whether non-restrictive relative clauses can be used to modify nonspecific indefinite antecedents, that is, to noun phrases referring to entities that are not familiar to the speaker. Example (333a) is fully acceptable, but it is not immediately clear whether we should construe the modified noun phrase as nonspecific or as generic; cf. Section 5.1.1.5, sub IC2. The most prominent reading of example (333b) is one in which the noun phrase is construed specifically, that is, as known to the speaker; the nonspecific interpretation of the noun phrase seems to give rise to a marked result and to favor an appositional reading of the relative clause. Although judgments are somewhat subtle, we conclude from this that it is impossible to modify nonspecific indefinite noun phrases by means of a non-restrictive relative clause, which could be attributed to the fact that speakers cannot provide additional information about entities not familiar to them.

333

a.	Ik	verhuur	kamers	aan studenten, [RC	die	geen flat	kunnen	betalen].
	I	rent	rooms	to students	who	no flat	can	pay
	'I only rent rooms to students, who canʼt afford a flat.'

b.	#	Ik wil deze kamer	aan een student	verhuren, [RC	die	geen flat	kan betalen].
		I want this room	to a student	rent	who	no flat	can pay
		'I rent this room to a student, who canʼt afford a flat.'

[+] C. Non-restrictive relative clauses with predicative antecedents

Non-restrictive relative clauses can be used to modify nominal predicates provided that the relative pronoun functions as the predicate of the relative clause. The examples in (334) show that in cases like these, the relative pronoun invariably has the form wat.

334

a.	Jan is een dwaas, [RC	wat/*die	ik	niet	ben].
	Jan is a fool	which/that	I	not	am
	'Jan is a fool, which Iʼm not.'

b.	Els is een genie, [RC	wat/*dat	Peter	bepaald	niet	is].
	Els is a genius	which/that	Peter	distinctly	not	is
	'Els is a genius, which Peter is certainly not.'

c.	Jan en Els	zijn	voetbalfans, [RC	wat/*die	ik	niet	ben].
	Jan and Els	are	soccer fans	which/that	I	not	am
	'Jan and Els are soccer fans, which Iʼm not.'

If the relative pronoun functions as an argument in a non-restrictive relative clause, it is sometimes difficult to establish what the antecedent of the relative clause is. Example (335a), for example, can easily be misanalyzed as a case involving a non-restrictive relative clause modifying the predicate een dwaas'a fool'. The correct analysis is the one in which the relative clause provides some specific information about the noun phrase die man'that man', which means that the relation of the relative clause to the nominal predicate is more indirect: the fact that the man always does as he is told is the reason why he is considered a fool. This use of the relative clause is characterized by the fact that primary accent is assigned to the relative clause, which provides new information about the antecedent. That the relative clause does not modify the predicate in examples like these is clear from the fact illustrated in (335b) that the pronoun die is replaced by its neuter counterpart dat if the non-neuter subject die man is replaced by the neuter noun phrase het meisje'the girl'. From this we may safely conclude that we are dealing with a relative clause in extraposed position that takes the subject of the clause as its antecedent, which is also supported by the fact that the primed examples are also acceptable.

335

a.	Die man	is een dwaas, [RC	die	altijd	doet	wat	hem	gezegd	wordt].
	that man	is a fool	who	always	does	what	him	said	is
	'That man is a fool, who always does as he is told.'

a'.

Die man , [RC die altijd doet wat hem gezegd wordt], is een dwaas.

b.		Dat meisje	is een dwaas, [RC	dat	altijd	doet	wat	haar	gezegd	wordt].
		that man	is a fool	who	always	does	what	her	said	is

b'.

Dat meisje, [RC dat altijd doet wat haar gezegd wordt], is een dwaas.

Essentially the same thing is shown in (336), where the nominal predicate is the neuter noun genie'genius'. Again, the form of the relative pronoun is sensitive to the gender of the subject of the clause, not to that of the predicate.

336

a.	Dat meisje is een genie, [RC	dat	voortdurend	miskend	wordt].
	that girl is a genius	who	continuously	underestimated	is
	'That girl is a genius, who is continuously underestimated.'

a'.

Dat meisje, [RC dat voortdurend miskend wordt], is een genie.

b.		Die man is een genie, [RC	die	voortdurend	miskend	wordt].
		that man is a genius	who	continuously	underestimated	is

b'.

Die man, [RC die voortdurend miskend wordt], is een genie.

A complicating factor with the examples in (335) and (336), which we ignored in the discussion above, is that it is not entirely clear whether we are really dealing with non-restrictive relative clauses: Subsection IIIA, will show that it is normally impossible to extrapose such clauses from subjects in clause-initial position, which means that we may actually be dealing with appositions. However, this does not affect the conclusion that we may draw from the data discussed so far, namely that a nominal predicate cannot be the antecedent of a non-restrictive relative clause if the relative pronoun functions as an argument.
A potential problem for such a claim is presented by the somewhat marked examples in (337). In these examples, the relative clause is generic in the sense that it provides information about the whole class of fools/genial people: this use of the modifying clause is characterized by placing primary accent on the (adverbial) element expressing the generic nature of the relative clause. The fact that the relative clause provides information about the class denoted by the predicate makes it plausible to assume that it is not the subject but the predicate that functions as the antecedent of the relative clause.

337

a.	?	Jan is een dwaas, [RC	die	immers	altijd	doen	wat	ze	gezegd	wordt].
		Jan is a fool	who	after.all	always	do	what	them	said	is
		'Jan is a fool, who, as we know, always do as theyʼre told.'

b.	?	Marie is een genie, [RC	die	per definitie	miskend	worden].
		Marie is a genius	which	by definition	underestimated	are
		'Marie is a genius, which by definition are not appreciated.'

It should be noted, however, that the relative pronoun does not agree in number with the nominal predicate: the predicate is singular, whereas the relative pronoun, which functions as the subject of the relative clause, triggers plural agreement on the finite verb. Note further that full agreement between the relative pronoun and the neuter nominal predicate een genie in (337b), would require that the former have the form dat (and not the plural form die). This lack of number and gender agreement suggests that we are not dealing with a relative construction in (337) at all, but with a construction of some other type. In this connection, it may be useful to refer to the sequences in (338), in which the anaphoric plural pronoun in the second sentence also refers to all the members of the class referred to by the singular generic subjects of the first sentence.

338

a.	Een genie	wordt	zelden	tijdens zijn leven	erkend.	Ze	zijn	daarom	vaak	ongelukkig.
	a genius	is	seldom	during his life	recognized.	They	are	therefore	often	unhappy.
	'A genius is rarely appreciated during his life. Thatʼs why theyʼre often unhappy.'

b.	Een kat	is een ideaal huisdier.	Ze	geven	nauwelijks	rommel.
	a cat	is an ideal pet.	They	give	hardly	mess
	'A cat is an ideal pet. They hardly give any mess.'

From the discussion in this subsection, we conclude that non-restrictive relative clauses can only be used if the relative pronoun also functions as a predicate, in which case the pronoun must have the form wat.

[+] II. Different types of non-restrictive relative clauses

Non-restrictive relative clauses typically provide additional, non-identifying information about the referent(s) of their antecedent, and can therefore normally be left out without affecting the grammaticality or felicity of the construction, and with the addressee not being aware of any information left out. In this use, the non-restrictive relative clauses have a typical “by-the-way” function, and come very close to appositional constructions; cf. Section 3.1.3. The examples in (339) show that this purely additive nature of the information in the relative clause can be made explicit by adding the adverb overigens'by the way', which is unacceptable in the restrictive relative clauses in the primed examples.

339

a.	De auto, [RC	die	(overigens)	van een Japans merk was],	was erg duur.
	the car	which	by.the.way	of a Japanese brand was	was very expensive
	'The car, which, by the way, was of a Japanese brand, was very expensive.'

a'.

De auto [RC die (*overigens) van een Japans merk was], was erg duur.

b.	Mijn broer, [RC	die	(overigens)	in Utrecht woont],	komt	vanavond	ook.
	my brother	who	by.the.way	in Utrecht lives	comes	tonight	also
	'My brother, who, by the way, lives in Utrecht now, is also coming tonight.'

b'.

Mijn broer [RC die (*overigens) in Utrecht woont], komt vanavond ook.

In some cases, however, the communicative function of the non-restrictive relative clause goes beyond this “by-the-way” function. The following subsections will discuss special uses of non-restrictive relative clauses, where the additional information provided in the clause plays an important part in (situating the modified noun phrase in) the larger context. In addition, we will pay some attention to cleft-sentences, which resemble non-restrictive relative clauses in several respects.

[+] A. Modifying the antecedent and the matrix clause

The additional information provided by the non-restrictive relative clause is not always restricted to the referent of the antecedent; often, the relative clause entertains an implicit adverbial-like relationship with the matrix clause. In example (340a), for instance, the relative clause can be construed as the reason for the immediate buying of the book. Likewise, the relative clauses in (340b-d) are all likely to be given a similar adverbial-like interpretation, expressing cause in (340b), concessive contrast in (340c), and a temporal relation in (340d).

340

a.	Ik	heb	het boek, [RC	dat	erg mooi	was],	direct	gekocht.
	I	have	the book	that	very beautiful	was	immediately	bought
	'Iʼve bought the book, which was very beautiful, immediately.'

b.	De man, [RC	die	een ongeluk	heeft	gehad],	ligt	nog steeds	in coma.
	the man	who	an accident	has	had	is	still	in coma
	'The man, who had had an accident, is still in a coma.'

c.	Ik	heb	het boek, [RC	dat	erg duur	was],	toch	maar	gekocht.
	I	have	the book	which	very expensive	was	after.all	prt	bought
	'Iʼve bought the book, which was very expensive, after all.'

d.	De man, [RC	die	maandag	arriveerde],	vertrok	de volgende dag	weer.
	the man	who	Monday	arrived	left	the next day	again
	'The man, who arrived on Monday, left the next day.'

In examples like these, the non-restrictive relative clause is needed for a proper interpretation of other elements in the matrix clause; for instance, the adverbs nog steeds'still' in (340b) and the modal particle toch'after all' in (340c) can only be interpreted on the basis of the information given in the relative clause; similarly, the proper interpretation of the adverbial phrases weer'again' and de volgende dag'the next day' in (340d) depend on information given in the relative clause. Leaving out the relative clauses in these cases yields a grammatical but infelicitous result (unless the context provides the relevant information).

[+] B. Continuative relative clauses: discourse relevancy

Non-restrictive relative clauses are normally used to present additional or background information about the antecedent, as in (339), or about the antecedent and the event described in the matrix clause, as in (340). In either case the role of the relative clause is restricted to the sentence, and does not play a crucial role in the development of the discourse (conversation, story, arguments etc.). In some cases, however, non-restrictive relative clauses in sentence-final position may have, in terms of importance as well as discourse continuity, almost the status of a matrix clause. Such non-restrictive relative clauses are often called “continuative” or “consecutive”. Although from a purely syntactic point of view such relative clauses can be left out, omission of the relative clause would lead to an information gap, and therefore an incoherent discourse. First, consider the example in (341), in which the information provided by the relative clause is clearly background information, as shown by the fact that adding the modifier overigens'by the way' is perfectly acceptable.

341

De zoon van het slachtoffer, [RC

die

(overigens)

volhield

onschuldig

te zijn],

werd

gisteren

door de politie

gearresteerd.

De arrestatie

vond plaats ...

the son of the victim

who

by.the.way

insisted

innocent

to be

was

yesterday

by the police

arrested

the arrest

took place

'The son of the victim, who (by the way) maintained his innocence, was yesterday arrested by the police. The arrest took place ...'

In (342a), on the other hand, the relative clause forms a crucial link in the discourse chain. As such the use of overigens is infelicitous, while a modifier like vervolgens'subsequently', which serves to enhance discourse coherence, is perfectly acceptable. The sequence in (342a) comes, therefore, very close to the sequence in (342b), where the same information is provided in a matrix clause.

342

De politie

heeft

gisteren

de zoon van het slachtoffer

gearresteerd, [RC

die

vervolgens/*?overigens

hulp

inriep

van een advocaat].

Deze advocaat ...

the police

has

yesterday

the son of the victim

arrested

who

subsequently/by.the.way

help

called

of a lawyer

this lawyer

'Yesterday, the police arrested the son of the victim, who subsequently enlisted the immediate help of a well-known lawyer. This lawyer ...'

De politie

heeft

gisteren

de zoon van het slachtoffer

gearresteerd.

Deze

riep

direct

de hulp

van een advocaat.

Deze advocaat ...

the police

has

yesterday

the son of the victim

arrested.

the latter

called

directly

the help

prt.

of a lawyer

this lawyer

'Yesterday, the police arrested the son of the victim. The latter enlisted the immediate help of a well-known lawyer. This lawyer ...'

[+] C. Cleft constructions

This subsection briefly mentions some of the properties of the cleft construction, as this construction contains a phrase closely resembling a relative clause. Despite the fact that there is no intonation break between the antecedent and the modifying clause, we will nevertheless analyze this modifying clause as non-restrictive, as it does not restrict the (possibly singleton) referent set of the antecedent, but modifies this antecedent as a whole. Such an analysis is supported by the fact that under all circumstances the antecedent can take the form of a proper noun or a uniquely referring expression (Smits 1989: 203).
As can be seen from the examples in (343), cleft constructions characteristically contain the copular verb zijn and the impersonal pronoun het'it'. The modifying clause seems to contain a relative pronoun, which takes the non-pronominal phrase (which need not be a DP) as its antecedent. The function of the cleft construction as a whole is to emphasize the referent set of the antecedent, which is always given focal/contrastive accent.

343

a.	Het	zijn	de Amerikanen	[die	dit	voor het eerst	ontdekt	hebben].
	it	are	the Americans	who	this	for the first	discovered	have
	'It is the Americans who first discovered this.'

b.	Het	was Jan	[van wie	ik	het goede nieuws	heb	vernomen].
	it	was Jan	of who	I	the good news	have	heard
	'It was Jan from whom I heard the good news.'

c.	Het	is de president	[die	dit soort beslissingen	dient	te nemen].
	it	is the president	who	this sort [of] decisions	ought	to take
	'It is the president who ought to make this kind of decisions.'

The relative clause fulfills the crucial function of linking this antecedent to the ongoing discourse by supplying additional information. The relative clause in (343a), for example, clearly does not function to restrict the set of all Americans, but instead provides further information about this set as a whole. This additional information links the antecedent to the previous discourse, which is clear from the fact that the relative clause contains the deictic demonstrative pronoun dit'this', which can only be interpreted by appealing to information from the preceding context. When we abstract away from the contrastive function of the cleft construction, (343a) provides more or less the same information as the main clause De Amerikanen hebben dit voor het eerst ontdekt'The Americans discovered this first'. This means that leaving out the relative clause renders the construction infelicitous since this deprives the addressee from the information needed to properly relate the Americans to the topic of discussion and would leave the addressee wondering why reference is made to the entities denoted by the nominal predicate.

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

Non-restrictive clauses always follow their antecedent. Although they need not be adjacent to it, in many cases relative clauses do immediately follow their antecedent. This is illustrated in (344) for cases in which the antecedent functions as a subject, a direct or indirect object, or the complement of a preposition.

344

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

b.	Ik	heb	net	voor het eerst	mijn buurman, [RC	die	leraar	is],	ontmoet.
	I	have	just	for the first	my neighbor	who	teacher	is	met
	'Iʼve just met my neighbor, who is a teacher, for the first time.'

c.	Ik heb Jan, [RC	die	ziek	is],	een leuke detective	gegeven.
	I have Jan	who	ill	is	a nice detective	given
	'Iʼve given Jan, who is ill, a nice detective novel.'

d.	Ik	heb	naar Jan, [RC	die	mooi	piano	speelt],	geluisterd.
	I	have	to Jan	who	beautifully	piano	plays	listened
	'Iʼve listened to Jan, who plays the piano beautifully.'

As previously noted, the antecedent and the relative clause need not always be adjacent, and this subsection briefly discusses a number of issues relating to the positions of antecedent and relative clause. First we will consider cases in which the relative clause is in extraposed position, next we will look at the possibilities for topicalization, and we will conclude with a discussion of non-restrictive relative clauses with personal pronoun antecedent, which exhibit special behavior with regard to word order.

[+] A. Extraposition of the relative clause

The possibility of extraposition of non-restrictive relative clauses seems to be more or less the same as in the case of that of restrictive relative clauses discussed in Section 3.3.2.3.2, albeit that the result always tends to be slightly marked. Furthermore, it should be noted that giving judgments is often complicated by the fact that the resulting strings are generally also acceptable on an appositive reading, in which case the clause is preceded by a very distinct intonation break (a pause and usually a falling intonation much more pronounced than in the case of non-restrictive modifiers), which separates it from the preceding material, and emphasizes its parenthetical nature.
Section 3.3.2.3.2, sub II, has shown that extraposition of a non-restrictive relative clause is possible from a subject provided that the latter does not occupy the canonical subject position to the immediate right of the complementizer. The examples in (345) show that the same thing holds for non-restrictive relative clauses. Whereas (345a) is only acceptable if pronounced with the intonation pattern typical of an appositional reading, the examples in (345b'&c') do not require this.

345

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

a'.

Jan speelt goed piano, [RC die naast mij woont].

b.	dat	er	nu	een pianist, [RC	die	prachtig speelt],	naast me	woont.
	that	there	now	a pianist	who	beautifully plays	next.to me	lives
	'that there lives a pianist next to me, who plays beautifully.'

b'.

dat er nu een pianist naast me woont, [RC die prachtig speelt].

c.	dat	waarschijnlijk	de pianist, [RC	die	prachtig speelt],	wordt	gekozen.
	that	probably	the pianist	who	beautifully plays	is	chosen
	'that the pianist will be chosen, who plays beautifully.'

c'.

dat waarschijnlijk de pianist wordt gekozen, [RC die prachtig speelt].

Example (346b) shows that extraposition of a non-restrictive relative clause from a direct object antecedent seems possible: of course, we may be dealing here with an apposition as well, but it seems that we do not have to pronounce this example with the intonation pattern associated with appositions. In this respect, example (346b) crucially differs from the (c)-examples in (346), which involve, repectively, scrambling and topicalization of the direct object and which are only acceptable with the intonation pattern associated with appositions.

346

a.	Ik	heb	net	voor het eerst	mijn buurman, [RC	die	leraar	is],	ontmoet.
	I	have	just	for the first	my neighbor	who	teacher	is	met
	'Yesterday I met my neighbor, who is a teacher, for the first time.'

Ik heb net voor het eerst mijn buurman ontmoet, [RC die leraar is].

Ik heb mijn buurman net voor het eerst ontmoet, [RC die leraar is].

c'.

Mijn buurman heb ik net voor het eerst ontmoet, [RC die leraar is].

Extraposition of non-restrictive relative clauses seems to give rise to a slightly marked result if the antecedent is the complement of a preposition. This is illustrated in (347b) for a prepositional indirect object and in (348b) for a PP-complement of the verb. The (c)-examples show that topicalization of the PP makes the result unacceptable on the intended non-appositional reading. Note that, just as in the case of extraposition of restrictive relative clauses, the markedness of the (b)-examples might be due to the fact that the (b)-examples compete with constructions in which the full PP is in extraposed position.

347

a.	Ik	heb	die leuke detective	aan Jan, [RC	die	ziek	is],	gegeven.
	I	have	that nice detective	to Jan	who	ill	is	given
	'Iʼve given that nice detective novel to Jan, who is ill.'

Ik heb die leuke detective aan Jan gegeven, [RC die ziek is].

Aan Jan heb ik die leuke detective gegeven, [RC die ziek is].

348

a.	Ik	heb	naar Jan, [RC	die	mooi	piano	speelt],	geluisterd.
	I	have	to Jan	who	beautifully	piano	plays	listened
	'Iʼve listened to Jan, who plays the piano beautifully.'

Ik heb naar Jan geluisterd, [RC die mooi piano speelt].

Naar Jan heb ik geluisterd, [RC die mooi piano speelt].

Section 3.3.2.3.2, sub II, has also shown that extraposition of restrictive relative clauses from nominal indirect objects is possible provided that the indirect object is preceded by the direct object. The examples in (349) show that the same thing holds for non-restrictive relative clauses: the examples in (349c&d), in which the direct object precedes the indirect object as the result of, respectively, scrambling and topicalization, are considerably better than example (349b), in which the direct object follows the indirect object.

349

a.	Ik	heb	Jan, [RC	die	ziek	is],	die leuke detective	gegeven.
	I	have	Jan	who	ill	is	that nice detective	given
	'Iʼve given Jan, who is ill, that nice detective novel.'

Ik heb Jan die leuke detective gegeven, [RC die ziek is].

c.	?	Ik	heb	het	Jan	gegeven, [RC	die	ziek	is].
		I	have	it	Jan	given	who	ill	is

Die leuke detective heb Jan gegeven, [RC die ziek is].

The data in (349) suggest that a non-restrictive relative clause in extraposed position must be construed with the first noun phrase to its left. This receives more support from the contrast between the primeless and primed examples in (350). The unacceptability of (350a') can of course be accounted for by appealing to the freezing principle, given that the word order in this example is derived by leftward movement of the prepositional indirect object. The unacceptability of (351b), on the other hand, cannot be accounted for in the same way, given that we are dealing here with the underlying order of the two arguments. The fact that leftward movement of the prepositional indirect object in (350b'&b'') makes this example fully acceptable therefore supports the claim that an extraposed non-restrictive relative clause must be construed with the first noun phrase to its left.

350

a.		Ik	heb	een boek	aan Peter	gegeven, [RC	die	ziek	is].
		I	have	a book	to Peter	given	who	ill	is

a'.

Ik heb aan Peter een boek gegeven, [RC die ziek is].

b.	*?	Ik	heb	?een/*?het boek	aan Peter	gegeven, [RC1	dat	over WO II	gaat].
		I	have	a/the book	to Peter	given	that	about WW II	goes

b'.

Ik heb aan Peter een/het boek gegeven, [RC1 dat over WO II gaat].

b''.

Aan Peter heb ik een/het boek gegeven, [RC1 dat over WO II gaat].

[+] B. Multiple relative clauses in extraposed position

The conclusion that an extraposed non-restrictive relative clause must be construed with the first noun phrase to its left predicts that if a sentence contains two non-restrictive relative clauses modifying different DPs, only the second relative clause can be in extraposed position. The examples in (351) show that this prediction is correct: example (351a) simply gives the unmarked order without extraposition; the (b)-examples show that, as expected, extraposition of RC2 gives rise to an acceptable (though marked) result, whereas extraposition of RC1 gives rise to an unacceptable result; the (c)-examples show that extraposition of both relative clauses is impossible regardless of their order.

351

heb

een boek, [RC1

dat

over WO II

gaat],

aan Peter, [RC2

die

ziek

is],

gegeven.

have

a book

which

about WW II

goes

to Peter

who

ill

given

'Iʼve given a book, which deals with WW II, to Peter, who is ill.'

Ik heb een boek, dat over WO II gaat, aan Peter gegeven, die ziek is.

b'.

Ik heb een boek aan Peter, die ziek is, gegeven, dat over WO II gaat.

Ik heb een boek aan Peter gegeven, dat over WO II gaat, die ziek is.

c'.

Ik heb een boek aan Peter gegeven, die ziek is, dat over WO II gaat.

If two non-restrictive relative clauses modify a single antecedent, extraposition is also excluded. Section 3.3.2.3.4, sub I, will show that stacking of non-restrictive relative clauses is severely restricted, but not impossible: if the two stacked relative clauses are introduced by different relative pronouns and if the relation between the two relative clauses is specified, as (352a) the result may be more or less acceptable, although a structure in which the two relative clauses are coordinated is much preferred; cf. the fully acceptable Ik heb Els uitgenodigd, die hiernaast woont en met wie ik (bovendien) bevriend ben. The two (b)-examples show that extraposition of the relative clauses is categorically impossible.

352

heb

Els, [RC

die

hiernaast

woont],

[RC

met

wie

??(bovendien)

bevriend

ben],

uitgenodigd.

have

Els

who

next.door

lives

[RC

with

whom

moreover

friendly

invited

'Iʼve invited Els, who lives next door and who is a friend of mine.'

Ik heb E., die hiernaast woont, uitgenodigd, met wie ik (bovendien) bevriend ben.

b'.

Ik heb E. uitgenodigd, die hiernaast woont, met wie ik (bovendien) bevriend ben.

[+] C. Leftward movement of the antecedent

Scrambling of the antecedent and relative clause together is possible, as shown by (353b) for direct object antecedents. Example (353c) shows that scrambling of the direct object cannot strand the non-restrictive relative clause, and (353d) illustrates that scrambling of the antecedent is also impossible if the relative clause is in extraposed position. The examples in (354) illustrate the same thing for a prepositional indirect object antecedent.

353

a.	Ik heb net mijn buurman, [RC	die	hier onlangs	is komen wonen],	ontmoet.
	I have just my neighbor	who	here recently	is come live	met
	'Iʼve just met my neighbor, who recently came to live here.'

Ik heb mijn buurman, [RC die hier onlangs is komen wonen], net ontmoet.

Ik heb mijn buurman net, [RC die hier onlangs is komen wonen], ontmoet.

Ik heb mijn buurman net ontmoet, [RC die hier onlangs is komen wonen].

354

a.	Ik	heb	dat boek over WO II	aan Peter, [RC	die	ziek	is],	gegeven.
	I	have	het book about WW II	to Peter	who	ill	is	given
	'I gave that book on WW II to Peter, who is ill.'

Ik heb aan Peter, [RC die ziek is], dat boek over WO II gegeven.

Ik heb aan Peter dat boek over WO II, [RC die ziek is], gegeven.

Ik heb aan Peter dat boek over WO II gegeven, [RC die ziek is].

Topicalization of both antecedent and restrictive relative clause is possible. This is true regardless of the syntactic function of the antecedent. This is illustrated in the (b)-examples of (355) and (356) for antecedents functioning, respectively, as a direct and an indirect object. The (c)-examples show that topicalization cannot strand the relative clause in the original position of the object. The (d)-examples show that, unlike in constructions with restrictive relative clauses, splitting the antecedent and the relative clause by topicalizing the former and extraposing the latter is excluded: (355d) is acceptable but only on a (restrictive) appositive reading (see Section 3.1.3) and example (356d) is completely unacceptable.

355

a.	Ik heb net mijn buurman, [RC	die	hier onlangs	is komen wonen],	ontmoet.
	I have just my neighbor	who	here recently	is come live	met
	'Iʼve just met my neighbor, who recently came to live here.'

Mijn buurman, [RC die hier onlangs is komen wonen], heb ik net ontmoet.

Mijn buurman heb ik net, [RC die hier onlangs is komen wonen], ontmoet.

Mijn buurman heb ik net ontmoet, [RC die hier onlangs is komen wonen].

356

a.	Ik	heb	dat boek over WO II	aan Peter, [RC	die	ziek	is],	gegeven.
	I	have	het book about WW II	to Peter	who	ill	is	given
	'I gave that book on WW II to Peter, who is ill.'

Aan Peter, [RC die ziek is], heb ik dat boek over WO II gegeven.

Aan Peter heb ik dat boek over WO II, [RC die ziek is], gegeven.

Aan Peter heb ik dat boek over WO II gegeven, [RC die ziek is].

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

Subsection IA has shown that non-restrictive relative clauses can be used to modify personal pronouns: if the antecedent and the relative pronoun have the same syntactic function (in the matrix clause and relative clause, respectively) such constructions are perfectly acceptable; if the antecedent and the relative pronoun do not have the same syntactic function, the result is somewhat marked if either the relative pronoun or the antecedent functions as a subject.
In the case of topicalization the results are somewhat different, however: the examples in (357) seem to indicate that topicalization of the object of the matrix clause is possible only in those cases in which the antecedent and the relative pronoun have the same syntactic function. The examples in (357), for example, in which the antecedent hem'him' and the relative pronouns function as direct objects, are fully acceptable.

357

a.		Hem, [RC	die	ze	ontslagen	hebben],	hebben	ze	niet	uitgenodigd.
		him	who	they	fired	have	have	they	not	invited

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

If, on the other hand, the relative pronoun has the function of subject of the relative clause, as in (358), the result is highly marked.

358

a.	*?	Hem, [RC	die	er	om	gevraagd	had],	hebben	ze	niet	uitgenodigd.
		him	who	there	for	asked	has	have	they	not	invited

Hem, [RC

die

daar

met

Marie

praat],

heb

nooit

eerder

gezien.

him

who

there

with

Marie

talks

have

never

before

seen

Example (359a) shows, however, that examples such as (358) improve if the topicalized object pronoun takes the subject form that corresponds to the function of the relative pronoun in the relative clause. As shown by example (359b), this form ( hij'he') is not acceptable if the direct object is in its regular position in the middle field of the clause.

359

a.	?	Hij, [RC	die	daar	met Marie	praat],	heb	ik	nooit	eerder	gezien.
		he	who	there	with Marie	talks	have	I	never	before	seen

b.		Ik	heb	hem/*hij, [RC	die	daar	met Marie	praat],	nooit	eerder	gezien.
		I	have	him/he	who	there	with Marie	talks	never	before	seen

Note further that this option of using the nominative form only arises with the direct object; if the antecedent functions as the indirect object of the matrix clause, the subject form can never be used, regardless of whether the object is in topicalized position or in its regular position in the middle field of the clause. This is shown by (360).

360

a.	*	Hij, [RC	die er om gevraagd had],	hebben	ze	een exemplaar	toegestuurd.
		he	who there for asked had	have	they	a copy	prt.-sent

Ze hebben hem/*hij, [RC die er om gevraagd had], een exemplaar toegestuurd.

The examples in (361), finally, show that in other cases in which the antecedent and the relative pronoun perform different syntactic functions similar problem do not arise. For example, in (361a) the antecedent has the function of indirect object whereas the relative pronoun functions as direct object, but still topicalization is possible. And in (361b) the antecedent functions as a direct object whereas the relative pronoun is part of the adverbial phrase, and does not even function as an argument in the relative clause. From this we may conclude that topicalization is possible if the antecedent pronoun has the morphological form required by the syntactic function of the relative pronoun in the relative clause. In this respect, non-restrictive relative clauses behave just like restrictive ones; cf. Section 3.3.2.3.2, sub IIE.

361

a.	Mij, [RC	die	ze	vergeten waren],	hebben ze later een exemplaar	gestuurd.
	me	who	they	forgotten were	have they later a copy	sent
	'They have sent me, who they had forgotten, a copy later.'

b.	Haar, [RC	met wie	Els staat	te praten],	heb	ik	nooit	eerder	gezien.
	her	with whom	Els stands	to talk	have	I	never	before	seen
	'Her, with whom Els is talking, Iʼve never seen before.'

References:

Smits, R.J.C1989The relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languagesTilburgTilburg UniversityThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AgreementAntecedent of Relative PronounCleft ConstructionCopular VerbExtrapositionFreezingModificationNounObject PronounPersonal PronounPronounProper NounRelative PronounScramblingSubject PronounSubject-verb AgreementTopicalizationVerb

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

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

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles