Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

11.3.2.Relative clauses

quickinfo

This section discusses the role of as well as the restrictions on wh-movement in the formation of relative clauses (henceforth: relativization). Example (268) shows that relativization involves movement of some relative element such as the relative pronoun die'who' into the initial position of the relative clause; as a result, the relative element immediately follows its antecedent.

268

[De man	[diei	ik	gisteren ti	ontmoet	heb]]	is vertrokken.
the man	who	I	yesterday	met	have	is left
'The man who I met yesterday has left.'

This section is relatively brief since the reader will find an extensive discussion of relative clauses in Section N3.3.2, so that there is little need to digress on side issues. For example, it is shown there that there are virtually no restrictions on the syntactic function or the form of the wh-moved relative element; as in the case of question formation, relativization allows any clausal constituent to undergo wh-movement provided that a proper relative form is available. We will therefore focus on the movement behavior of these relative elements, subsection I starts by showing that wh-movement of the relative element is obligatory: it is not possible to leave it in situ, subsection II discusses pied piping and stranding, subsection III continues with a number of cases in which the relative element undergoes long wh-movement, and also discusses a number of island configurations, subsection IV concludes with a brief discussion of so-called cleft constructions like Het is Peter [die ik wil spreken]'It is Peter who I want to speak', as the internal structure of embedded clauses in such constructions resembles relative clauses quite closely.
The overall conclusion of the following discussion will be that wh-phrases and relative elements exhibit similar movement behavior in most respects. There are, however, two important differences that we will mention here. First, wh-movement of relative elements applies in embedded clauses only, which is simply due to the fact that relative clauses are constituents within a noun phrase. Second, since relative clauses have at most one antecedent, they also have at most one relative element: there is no such thing as a multiple relative construction.

I. Wh-movement of the relative element is obligatory
II. Pied piping and stranding
III. Long Wh-movement and islands
IV. Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions

[+] I. Wh-movement of the relative element is obligatory

There are good reasons for assuming that relative elements are like wh-phrases in that they are moved into the position preceding the complementizer. This cannot be shown for Standard Dutch, however, because the phonetic content of the complementizer is obligatorily elided in relative clauses, as is indicated in (269a) by strikethrough. It is nevertheless quite plausible, as many Flemish and Frisian dialects do allow the complementizer to be overtly expressed; see Pauwels (1958), Dekkers (1999:ch.3), Barbiers et al. (2005:section 1.3.1), Boef (2013:ch.3), and the references cited there. Example (269b) shows that movement of the relative element is obligatory; leaving it in situ results in ungrammaticality.

269

a.	[De man [CP	diei	dat [IP	ik	gisteren ti	ontmoet	heb]]]	is vertrokken.
	the man	who	that	I	yesterday	met	have	is left
	'The man who I met yesterday has left.'

b.	*	[De man [CP	dat [IP	ik	gisteren	die	ontmoet	heb]]]	is vertrokken.
		the man	that	I	yesterday	who	met	have	is left

The obligatoriness of movement can again be motivated semantically by assuming that wh-movement of the relative element creates an open proposition (that is, a one-place predicate) which can be used to modify the head noun. On this view, a relative clause is semantically similar to an attributive modifier like boze in de boze man'the angry man', which is likewise a one-place predicate. This more or less classical idea is attractive, of course, given that it suggests that the role of wh-movement in question formation and relativization can be unified. Although there is currently a debate going on about the question as to whether the derivation of relative clauses given in (269) is fully correct, we will simply assume that the suggested semantic motivation for wh-movement in relative clauses is on the right track and that any syntactic account of relativization should be able to accommodate it in order to be tenable; we refer to Bianchi (1999), De Vries (2002:ch.4) and Salzmann (2006:ch.1) for extensive reviews of the debate mentioned above.

[+] II. Pied piping and stranding

If wh-movement in relative clauses is indeed motivated by the need to create an open proposition, we would again expect that it is precisely the relative element that must be moved into clause-initial position. This raises the question as to whether wh-movement will trigger pied piping if syntactic constraints prohibit extraction. The examples in (270) show that this is indeed the case: as wh-movement of the italicized relative element would suffice to create the wanted open predicate, pied piping of the larger phrase should be motivated by appealing to a syntactic restriction that prohibits extraction of the relative element from the noun phrase wiens vader'whose father'.

270

a.	[De jongen [[NP	wiens vader]i	ik	gisteren ti	ontmoet	heb]]	is ziek.
	the boy	whose father	I	yesterday	met	have	is ill
	'The boy whose father I met yesterday is ill.'

b.	*	[De jongen	[wiensi	ik	gisteren [NPti	vader]	ontmoet	heb]]	is ziek.
		the boy	whose	I	yesterday	father	met	have	is ill

The restrictions on extraction of relative elements are more or less the same as those on extraction on wh-elements. In order to avoid a full repetition of the discussion on stranding and pied piping in Section 11.3.1.1, we will illustrate this for PPs only. The examples in (271) first show that prepositional objects like naar wie'at who' require pied piping. However, if the PP has the pronominalized form waarnaar (which is easier to get for human entities in relative clauses than in wh-questions as the result of the presence of an antecedent with the feature +human) stranding is possible and may even be preferred (although we do not have frequency data available to corroborate this).

271

a.	[De jongen [[PP	naar wie]i	je ti	kijkt]]	is mijn broer.
	the boy	at who	you	look	is my brother
	'The boy you are looking at is my brother.'

a'.	*	[De jongen	[wiei	je [PP	naar ti]	kijkt]]	is mijn broer.
		the boy	who	you	at	look	is my brother

b.	(?)	[De jongen [[PP	waar naar]i	je ti	kijkt]]	is mijn broer.
		the boy	where at	you	look	is my brother
		'The boy you are looking at is my brother.'

b'.		[De jongen	[waari	je [PPti	naar]	kijkt]]	is mijn broer.
		the boy	where	you	at	look	is my brother

The examples in (272) show the same thing for prepositional complementives; see P4.2.1.1 for extensive discussion of the fact that verbs of location like zitten'to sit' take a complementive. If the complement of the preposition is the interrogative pronoun wie, pied piping is obligatory, whereas stranding seems to be the preferred option in the case of pronominal PPs.

272

a.	De kat	zit [PP	bij Peter].
	the cat	sits	with Peter
	'The cat is sitting with Peter.'

b.	De man [[PP	bij wie]i	de kat ti	zit]	is mijn broer.
	the man	with who	the cat	sits	is my brother
	'The man the cat is sitting with is my brother.'

b'.	*	De man	[wiei	de kat [PP	bij ti]	zit]	is mijn broer.
		the man	who	the cat	with	sits	is my brother

c.	?De man [[PP	waari	bij]	de kat ti	zit]	is mijn broer.
	the man	where	with	the cat	sits	is my brother
	'The man the cat is sitting with is my brother.'

c'.		De man	[waari	de kat [PPti	bij]	zit]	is mijn broer.
		the man	where	the cat	with	sits	is my brother

Postpositional complementives differ from prepositional ones in that they do not allow pied piping but require stranding of the postposition. We illustrate this in (273) by means of the complementive de boom in'into the tree'.

273

a.	De kat is [PP	de boom in]	geklommen.
	the cat is	the tree into	climbed
	'The cat has climbed into the tree.'

b.	De boom	[diei	de kat [PPti	in]	geklommen	is]	is heel groot.
	the tree	which	the cat	into	climbed	is	is very big
	'The tree which the cat has climbed into is very big.'

b'.	*	De boom	[[die	in]i	de kat ti	geklommen	is]	is heel groot.
		the tree	which	into	the cat	climbed	is	is very big

The examples in (274), finally show that circumpositional complementives such as tussen wie door must be split: the first member of the circumposition plus the wh-phrase tussen wie is preposed while the second member door stays in situ.

274

a.	Jan is	[tussen de bewakers	door]	geglipt
	Jan is	between the guards	door	slipped
	'Jan has slipped past between the guards.'

b.	de bewakers	[[tussen wie]i	Jan [ti	door]	is geglipt]
	the guards	between who	Jan	door	is slipped
	'the guards between whom Jan has slipped past'

b'.	*	de bewakers	[tussen wie	door]i	Jan ti	is geglipt]
		the guards	between who	door	Jan	is slipped

The judgments on the examples above show that, as in questions, pied piping and stranding are more or less in complementary distribution; the formation of wh-questions and relativization seem in fact to exhibit essentially the same pattern. This suggests that we will be able to account for the examples in (271)- (274) by adopting the set of assumptions from Section 11.3.1.1, sub VI, including the "avoid pied piping" constraint; We refer the reader to this subsection for the general line of reasoning, which can be straightforwardly applied to the examples in (271) to (274).

[+] III. Long Wh-movement and islands

Relativization is compatible with long wh-movement: we illustrate this in example (275) for a direct object and an adverbial phrase extracted from an object clause.

275

a.	de man	[diei	ik	dacht	[dat	jij ti	gesproken	had]]
	the man	who	I	thought	that	you	spoken	had
	'the man who I thought that you had spoken with'

b.	de stad	[waari	ik	denk	[dat	jij	Jan ti	zal	ontmoeten]]
	the city	where	I	think	that	you	Jan	will	meet
	'the city where I think that you will meet Jan'

As in the case of wh-question formation, long wh-movement is only possible from argument clauses; the examples in (276) show that adjunct clauses prohibit extraction of both arguments and adjuncts and should therefore be considered strong islands for wh-movement of relative elements.

276

a.	Ik	vertrek	[nadat	jij	je lezing	gegeven	hebt].
	I	left	after	you	your talk	given	have
	'Iʼll leave after youʼve presented your lecture.'

a'.	*	de lezing	[diei	ik	vertrek	[nadat	jij ti	gegeven	hebt]]
		the talk	which	I	leave	after	you	given	have
		Compare: '*the talk which I will leave after youʼve presented'

b.	Ik	vertrek	[voordat	jij	in Amsterdam	aankomt].
	I	depart	before	you	in Amsterdam	arrive
	'Iʼll depart before you arrive in Amsterdam.'

b'.	*	de stad	[waari	ik	vertrek	[voordat	jij ti	aankomt]]
		the city	where	I	depart	before	you	arrive
		Compare: '*the city where Iʼll depart before you arrive'

Long wh-movement requires that the matrix clause contains a so-called bridge verb. Example (277b) shows for wh-questions that while long wh-movement is fully acceptable with the verb zeggen'to say', it is not easily possible with verbs of saying that express a manner component like schreeuwen'to yell'. Example (277c) shows that we find the same contrast with long wh-movement in relative clauses.

277

a.	Marie zegt/schreeuwt	[dat	Peter	een auto	gestolen	heeft].
	Marie says/yells	that	Peter	a car	stolen	has
	'Marie says/yells that Peter has stolen a car.'

b.	Wati	zegt/*schreeuwt	Marie	[dat	Peter ti	gestolen	heeft]?
	what	says/yells	Marie	that	Peter	stolen	has
	'What does Marie say that Peter has stolen?'

c.	de auto	[die	Marie zegt/*schreeuwt	[dat	Peter ti	gestolen	heeft]]
	the car	which	Marie says/yells	that	Peter	stolen	has
	'the car which Marie says that Peter has stolen'

It seems, however, that the set of bridge verbs is not identical for the two constructions. While Section 11.3.1.2 has shown that object clauses selected by factive verbs like weten'to know' are weak islands for long wh-movement in wh-questions, this does not seem to hold for long wh-movement in relative clauses. A corpus of long wh-movement constructions manually collected by Jack Hoeksema in fact shows that weten is the most frequent bridge verb in relative clauses derived by long wh-movement; cf. Table 5.2 in Schippers (2012). Although Schippers does not give concrete examples that illustrate the bridge function of weten, a Google search (7/27/2014) on the search string [ die ik wist dat] shows that this construction is indeed relatively frequent; the examples in (278) provide two attested examples. Observe that example (278a) seems to show that long wh-movement of subject pronouns does not give rise to the complementizer-trace effect in relative clauses for at least some speakers; see also Van der Auwera (1984), Boef (2013:35), and Coppen (2013).

278

a.		Er	is niemand [...]	[diei	ik	weet	[dat ti	dat	doet]].
		that	is nobody	who	I	know	that	that	does

zijn

twee dingen

[diei

weet

[dat

ik ti

niet

moet

doen]].

there

are

two things

that

know

that

not

should

'There are two things which I know I shouldnʼt do.'

It should be noted, however, that speakers seem to differ in their appreciation of relative clauses with long wh-movement. Salzmann (2006:153), for example, notes that some speakers prefer resumptive prolepsis constructions like (279) to long wh-movement constructions like (278).

279

a.	Er	is niemand [...]	[van wiei	ik	weet	[dat hij	dat	doet]].
	there	is nobody	of who	I	know that	he	that	does
	'There is nobody of whom I know that he is doing that.'

b.	Er zijn twee dingen	[waari-van	ik	weet	[dat	ik	zei	niet	moet	doen]].
	there are two things	which-of	I	know	that	I	them	not	should	do
	'There are two things which I know I shouldnʼt do.'

The island-sensitivity of wh-questions and relative clauses does not differ when it comes to strong islands. We will illustrate this here for embedded questions only. Example (280a) involves an embedded polar yes/no question and (280b) shows that such clauses block long wh-movement of relative elements; the competing resumptive prolepsis construction in (280c) does give rise to an acceptable result. The examples in (281) show the same by means of an embedded wh-question.

280

a.	Ik	vroeg	me	af	[of	Jan dat boek	gelezen	had].
	I	asked	refl	prt.	if	Jan that book	read	had
	'I wondered whether Jan had read that book.'

b.	*	het boek	[dati	ik	me	afvroeg	[of	Jan ti	gelezen	had]]
		the book	which	I	refl	prt.-wondered	if	Jan	read	had

c.	het boek	[waari-van	ik	me	afvroeg	[of	Jan heti	gelezen	had]]
	the book	which-of	I	refl	prt.-wondered	if	Jan it	read	had
	'the book about which I was wondering whether Jan had read it'

281

a.	Ik	vroeg	me	af	[wie	dat boek	gelezen	had].
	I	asked	refl	prt.	who	that book	read	had
	'I wondered who had read that book.'

b.	*	het boek	[dati	ik	me	afvroeg	[wie ti	gelezen	had]]
		the book	which	I	refl	prt.-wondered	who	read	had

c.	het boek	[waari-van	ik	me	afvroeg	[wie heti	gelezen	had]]
	the book	which-of	I	refl	prt.-wondered	who it	read	had
	'the book about which I was wondering who had read it'

[+] IV. Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions

This subsection briefly discusses wh-movement in so-called cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions. The cleft construction illustrated in (282a) is characterized by the fact that it involves the subject pronoun het'it', a contrastively focused complementive (here: je vriend) and a clause that closely resembles a relative clause. However, the clause does not function as a modifier of the complementive, as is clear from the fact that it neither restricts the denotation of the head noun vriend'friend' nor provides additional information about the referent of the definite noun phrase je vriend'your friend'. Instead, examples like (282a) express identity statements: the person who stole the book is identified as your friend. That we are not dealing with a modifier of the complementive is also clear from the fact that the clause cannot occur adjacent to it if there is a verb in clause-final position; restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are normally possible in preverbal position. The number sign indicates that examples like (282b) cannot be interpreted as an identity statement, although it can be used to refer to a certain friend who also happens to be a thief.

282

a.	dat	het	je vriend	is	[die ti	het boek	gestolen	heeft].
	that	it	your friend	is	who	the book	stolen	has
	'that it is your friend who has stolen the book.'

b.	#	dat	het	je vriend	[die ti	het boek gestolen	heeft]	is.
		that	it	your friend	who	the book stolen	has	is
		'that it is your friend who has stolen the book.'

In the linguistic literature on Dutch, cleft constructions have received little attention, which may be related to the fact that some researchers consider it a barbarism, which replaces the more regular construction that uses accent only, as in Je vriendje heeft het boek gestolen'Your friend has stolen the book'; see Paardekooper (1986:901), who seems to think that French influence plays a role here. Paardekooper analyzes the clause as an extraposed subject introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het. The reason is that it can also be preposed, as in (283a), which results in a construction that closely resembles the English pseudo-cleft construction. The fact that (283a) is more or less equivalent to (283b) further suggests that the clause is a free relative, and this is indeed what is suggested by Paardekooper as well as Smits (1989:section 4.2).

283

a.	[Die	het boek	gestolen	heeft]	is je vriend.
	who	the book	stolen	has	is your friend
	'Who has stolen the book is your friend.'

b.	Degeen	[die	het boek	gestolen	heeft]	is je vriend.
	the-person	who	the book	stolen	has	is your friend
	'The person who has stolen the book is your friend.'

De Vries (2002) voices some scepticism about claims that constructions of the type above should be identified with English cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions because the Dutch constructions have hardly been studied in their own right so far and it is not clear whether the findings for English carry over to Dutch. Since a detailed discussion will have to await until future research has clarified this issue, we confine ourselves here to noting that the movement of the relative-like element die into clause-initial position exhibits the hallmarks of wh-movement: the examples in (284), for instance, show that it is not clause-bound but nevertheless island-sensitive in that it cannot be extracted from an embedded question or an adjunct clause.

284

a.	Het	is	je vriend	[die	ik	denk	[dat ti	het boek	gestolen	heeft]].
	it	is	your friend	who	I	think	that	the book	stolen	has
	'that it is your friend who I think has stolen the book.'

Het

je vriend

[die

afvraag

[of ti

het boek

gestolen

heeft]].

your friend

who

refl

wonder

the book

stolen

has

c.	*	Het	is	je vriend	[die	ik	huil	[omdat ti	mijn boek	gestolen	heeft]].
		it	is	your friend	who	I	cry	because	my book	stolen	has

References:

Ankelien Schippers2012Variation and change in Germanic long-distance dependenciesUniversity of GroningenThesis
Auwera, Johan van der1984Subject vs non-subject asymmetries in the relativization of embeded NP'sGeest, Wim de & Putseys, Yvan (eds.)Sentential complementationDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications257-269
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, Vogelaer, Gunther de, Devos, Magda & Ham, Margreet van de2005Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialectsAmsterdamAmsterdam University Press
Bianchi, Valentina1999Consequences of antisymmetry. Headed relative clausesBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
Boef, Eefje2013Doubling in relative clauses. Aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in DutchUniversity UtrechtThesis
Boef, Eefje2013Doubling in relative clauses. Aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in DutchUniversity UtrechtThesis
Coppen, Peter-Arno2013De zin die wij merken dat ook voor linguïstische problemen zorgtNederlandse Taalkunde18193-203
Dekkers, Joost1999Derivations & evaluations. On the syntax of subjects and complementizersAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
Pauwels, J.L1958Het dialect van Aarschot en omstrekenBelgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek
Salzmann, Martin2006Resumptive prolepis. A study in indirect A'-dependenciesUniversity of LeidenThesis
Salzmann, Martin2006Resumptive prolepis. A study in indirect A'-dependenciesUniversity of LeidenThesis
Smits, R.J.C1989The relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languagesTilburgTilburg UniversityThesis
Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Publication date: 22 November 2023

Keywords: AccentAdjunctCleft ConstructionConstructionContrastive AccentInterrogative ClausePied PipingRelative ClauseRelativizationResumptive ProlepsisStrandingWh-extractionWh-movement

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles