Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

3.3.2.3.1.Differences between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses

quickinfo

Section 3.1 has shown that restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses differ both in function and in form. As far as function is concerned, restrictive relative clauses serve to restrict the referent set of the antecedent, whereas non-restrictive relative clauses simply provide additional information without restricting this referent set. As for form, restrictive relative clauses form an intonation unit with their antecedent, while non-restrictive relative clauses are separated from their antecedent by means of an intonation break, represented in written language by commas preceding and following the relative clause. There are, however, other differences between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, the most important of which are discussed in the following subsections.

I. Type of antecedent
II. Scope of the determiner/quantifier
- A. The definite article
- B. Quantified antecedents
III. Definiteness/Indefiniteness of the antecedent
IV. Binding
V. Negative polarity
VI. Stacking

[+] I. Type of antecedent

Restrictive relative clauses must have a nominal antecedent, whereas non-restrictive relative clauses can take almost any category as their antecedent. The examples in (242) show that the antecedent can be a finite or infinitival clause or a smaller projection of the verb, and those in (243) show that the same thing holds for predicative APs, PPs and noun phrases. In all cases, the information given in the relative clause is additional information, and does not restrict the set of possible referents of the antecedent.

242

a.	[clause	Hij	ontkende	alle betrokkenheid]i ,	wati	een juiste reactie	was.
	[clause	he	denied	all involvement	what	a right reaction	was
	'He denied all involvement, which was the right reaction.'

b.	Jan zag [clause	het schip zinken]i ,	wati	niet	lang	duurde.
	Jan saw	the ship sink	what	not	long	lasted
	'Jan saw the ship sink, which didnʼt take long.'

c.	Jan heeft [VP	zich	teruggetrokken]i ,	wati	Piet nooit	zal	doen.
	Jan has	refl	withdrawn	what	Piet never	will	do
	'Jan has withdrawn, which Piet will never do .'

243

a.	De jongen	was [AP	erg bang]i ,	wati	ik	ook	zou	zijn	geweest.
	the boy	was	very afraid	what	I	also	would	be	been
	'The boy was afraid, which I would also have been.'

b.	Hij	woont [PP	achter het station]i ,	waari	een nieuwe wijk	is gebouwd.
	he	lives	behind the station	where	a new quarter	is built
	'He lives behind the station, where a new residential area has been built.'

c.	Jan is [NP	communist]i ,	wati	ik	niet	ben.
	Jan is	communist	what	I	not	am
	'Jan is a communist, which Iʼm not.'

Note that if the antecedent takes the form of an AP, both the AP and the relative pronoun must occur in predicative position. Thus in example (244a), the relative pronoun wat is coreferential with the predicative AP briljant'brilliant', whereas in (244b) the relative pronoun cannot take the attributive AP briljante as its antecedent, but only the DP een briljante onderzoeker'a brilliant researcher' as a whole.

244

a.	Jan is [AP	briljant]i,	wati	ik	niet	ben.
	Jan is	brilliant,	which	I	not	am
	'Jan is brilliant, which Iʼm not.'

b.	We	zoeken [DP	een [AP	briljante]j	onderzoeker]i,	wati/*j	Jan niet	is.
	we	search	a	brilliant	researcher,	which	Jan not	is
	'Weʼre looking for a brilliant researcher, which Jan is not.'

[+] II. Scope of the determiner/quantifier

An important difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses concerns the scope of the determiner or the quantifier of the antecedent: whereas the determiner/quantifier has scope over restrictive relative clauses, this does not hold for non-restrictive relative clauses. In the following two subsections, we will discuss the implications of this for the two types of element at hand.

[+] A. The definite article

The use of a definite article conveys that the referent set is “identifiable” in the sense of being given in or recoverable from the context. Since restrictive relative clauses serve to restrict the potential number of referents of the antecedent, this implies that the article has scope over both the antecedent and the relative clause. Non-restrictive relative clauses, on the other hand, provide additional information about the referent of the antecedent and do not serve to identify the referent of the antecedent: if this referent is assumed to be identifiable, it will be so independently of the information contained in the relative clause, and the definite article can therefore be assumed to have scope over only the antecedent. This difference in scope can be represented as in (245). In (245a) the relative clause is placed within the NP-domain, and hence in the scope of the determiner. In (245b), on the other hand, the relative clause is placed outside the NP in order to express that it does not affect the denotation of the noun, and hence has no influence on the size of the referent set of the complete DP; see Section 3.1.2, sub II, for a discussion of some problems concerning the internal structure of DPs containing non-restrictive modifiers.

245

a.	Restrictive relative clause: [DP D [NP [... N ...]i [RC RELi ... ti ... ]]]
	[DP	de [NP	fietsi [RC	diei	Jan ti	kocht]]]
	[DP	the	bike	that	Jan	bought
	'the bike Jan bought'

b.	Non-restrictive relative clause: [DP D [NP ... N ...]i , [RC RELi...ti...]]
	[DP	de [NP	fiets]i , [RC	diei	Jan ti	kocht]]
	[DP	the	bike	which	Jan	bought
	'the bike, which Jan bought'

In (245a), the choice of the definite determiner depends on the information provided in the relative clause: the definite article can be used, because the referent of the antecedent (fiets'bike') is identifiable on account of the fact that the relative clause restricts the set of bikes to exactly one. In (245b), on the other hand, the choice of the article does not depend on the information given in the relative clause: the referent of the antecedent is assumed to be identifiable independently of the relative clause.

[+] B. Quantified antecedents

If the antecedent noun is quantified, the scope of the quantifier varies according to the type of relative clause used: if the relative clause is restrictive, the quantifier has scope over both the antecedent noun and the relative clause; if the relative clause is non-restrictive, only the antecedent falls within the scope of the quantifier. This is illustrated in example (246) for the universal quantifier alle'all'. The difference in scope here corresponds to a straightforward difference in meaning: whereas (246b) expresses that all persons present were offered a meal, (246a) implies that only a subset of the persons present (namely, those that came from afar) were offered a meal.

246

a.	Alle aanwezigen	die	van ver	gekomen	waren,	kregen	een maaltijd.
	all persons present	who	from far	come	were	got	a meal
	'All those present who had come from afar were given a meal.'

Alle aanwezigen, die van ver gekomen waren, kregen een maaltijd.

Not all quantified noun phrases allow modification by both types of relative clause. Modification of a universally quantified noun phrase by a non-restrictive relative clause is only possible if the noun phrase denotes a group, as in (246); if we are dealing with a set of singular entities, as in the case of ieder(een)'every(one)' in (247) or elk'every/each' in (248), the modifying relative clause can only be restrictive.

247

a.	Iedereen/Iedere gast	die	van ver	gekomen	was,	kreeg	een maaltijd.
	everyone/every guest	who	from far	come	was	got	a meal
	'Everyone/Every guest who had come from afar was given a meal.'

Iedereen/Iedere gast, die van ver gekomen was, kreeg een maaltijd.

248

a.	Elke leerling	die	te laat	kwam,	werd	gestraft.
	every student	who	too late	came	was	punished
	'Every student who came too late was punished.'

Elke leerling, die te laat kwam, werd gestraft.

In the case of existential quantifiers like enkele'some', sommige'some' and de meeste'most', on the other hand, the interpretation can be complicated by the fact that the quantifier itself can have two different readings, a purely quantitative reading (some/most N) and a partitive one (some/most of the N). First consider the examples in (249), which involve restrictive relative clauses. As expected, the quantifiers enkele'some' and de meeste'most' have scope over the relative clause: example (249a) asserts that there is a set of books that are marked down, and that the speaker bought some of them, and example (249b) that there is a set of clocks that were broken, and that the speaker repaired most of them.

249

a.	Ik	heb	enkele [NP	boekeni	diei	afgeprijsd	waren	gekocht].
	I	have	some	books	which	marked.down	were	bought
	'Iʼve bought some books which were marked down.'

b.	Ik	heb	de meeste [NP	klokkeni	diei	stuk	waren	gerepareerd].
	I	have	the most	clocks	which	broken	were	repaired
	'Iʼve repaired most of the clocks that were broken.'

The interpretation of the corresponding examples with non-restrictive relative clauses varies depending on whether the quantifier has a purely quantitative or a partitive reading.

250

a.		Ik	heb	enkele [NP	boeken]i,	diei	afgeprijsd	waren,	gekocht.
		I	have	some	books	which	marked.down	were	bought

b.		Ik	heb	de meeste [NP	klokken]i	, diei	stuk	waren,	gerepareerd.
		I	have	the most	clocks	which	broken	were	repaired

On the purely quantificational reading, the information in the non-restrictive relative clause is taken to apply to the complete quantified set: (250a) asserts that some books were reduced in price and that the speaker bought these, and (250b) that many clocks were broken and that the speaker repaired these. On the partitive reading, on the other hand, there is a particular set of books or clocks that has been previously introduced into the discourse, and the quantified expression refers to a subset of this set. The relative clause, however, does not take the quantified expression as its antecedent, but the original, non-quantified set. In this case, the relative clause will be given contrastive emphasis and will, in terms of scope relations, be equivalent to the explicit partitive constructions given in (251).

251

a.		Ik	heb	enkele	van [de boeken]i,	diei	afgeprijsd	waren,	gekocht.
		I	have	some	of the books	which	marked.down	were	bought

b.		Ik	heb	de meeste	van [de klokken]i,	diei	stuk	waren,	gerepareerd.
		I	have	the most	of the clocks	which	broken	were	repaired

Negative noun phrases behave more or less like the universally quantified noun phrases in (247) and (248) in not allowing non-restrictive relative clauses. Some examples are given in (252).

252

a.	Geen enkele stad	die	ik	ken,	is zo mooi als Amsterdam.
	no single city	that	I	know	is so beautiful as Amsterdam
	'Not one city that I know is as beautiful as Amsterdam.'

a'.

Geen enkele stad, die ik ken, is zo mooi als Amsterdam.

b.	Ik	ken	niemand	die	van horrorfilms	houdt.
	I	know	no.one	who	of horror films	likes
	'I know no one who likes horror films.'

b'.

Ik ken niemand, die van horrorfilms houdt.

In the primeless examples, the negation expressed by geen and the n- part of the existential quantifier niemand have sentential scope. The interpretation has the general format in (253), in which N stands for the property expressed (the set denoted) by the modified NP and V for the property expressed by the VP. The effect of the restrictive relative clauses in the primeless examples in (252) is that the set denoted by the modified NP is smaller than the set denoted by the unmodified noun, which leads to the paraphrases in (253a&b).

253

¬∃x (Nx & Vx): there is no x, such that x has both the property N and V

There is no city x which I know and which is as beautiful as Amsterdam.

There is no person x who I know and who likes horror films.

The paraphrases in (253) show that the primeless examples in (252) do not exclude the existence of cities that are as beautiful as Amsterdam or of people known by the speaker. Given that non-restrictive relative clauses do not affect the referent set of the noun phrase, the primed examples do have these implications, and this is in fact the reason why they are unacceptable; since an empty set does not have any members about which one can give additional information, the use of a non-restrictive relative clause leads to a contradiction or at least a semantically incoherent interpretation. Sentence (252a'), for example, is incoherent given that it expresses that the members of the empty intersection of the set of cities and the set of entities that are as beautiful as Amsterdam are known to the speaker. Similarly, sentence (252b') expresses that the members of the empty set of people known by the speaker like horror movies.
Note in passing that non-restrictive relative clauses crucially differ in this respect from appositives, which can modify negative noun phrases. Example (254), for instance, is fully acceptable due to the fact that, although the apposition is added as an afterthought, it is still restrictive in nature; cf. the discussion in Section 3.1.3, sub II.

254

Geen enkele stad –	die	ik	ken	althans –	is zo mooi als Amsterdam.
no single city	that	I	know	at.least	is so beautiful as Amsterdam
'No city, at least no city that I know, is as beautiful as Amsterdam.'

[+] III. Definiteness/Indefiniteness of the antecedent

The examples in (255) show again that both restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are possible with definite antecedents, with the difference in meaning discussed in Subsection II: in the non-restrictive, primed examples the (possibly singleton) referent set of the definite antecedent is assumed to be identifiable without the information given in the relative clause; in the restrictive, primeless examples, on the other hand, the relative clause makes the referent set identifiable by restricting the denotation of the NP.

255

De koekoeksklok

die

uit Zwitserland

afkomstig was,

liep

het best.

a'.		De koekoeksklok,	die	uit Zwitserland	afkomstig was,	liep	het best.
		the cuckoo clock	which	from Switzerland	came	ran	the best

De koekoeksklokken

die

uit Zw.

afkomstig waren,

liepen

het best.

b'.		De koekoeksklokken,	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig waren,	liepen	het best.
		the cuckoo clocks	which	from Sw.	came	ran	the best

Modification of an indefinite antecedent is more restricted. Whereas restrictive relative clauses can always be used, non-restrictive relative clauses are only fully acceptable with indefinite antecedents if the noun phrase is given a generic interpretation: if the indefinite antecedent is interpreted specifically, a non-restrictive clause often leads to unacceptability, although there are also cases where the result is fine; non-restrictive clauses are excluded if the antecedent is nonspecific.

[+] A. Generic antecedents

The examples in (256) show that generic antecedents accept both restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, although the result is somewhat marked if the generic antecedent is singular, as in (256a'). The restrictive relative clauses in the primeless examples once more function to restrict the whole class of entities referred to by the antecedent noun. The non-restrictive relative clauses in the primed examples are used to provide extra information about the referent of the generic antecedent NP, that is, the entire class of objects denoted.

256

Een koekoeksklok

die

uit Zw.

afkomstig is,

loopt

altijd

goed.

a'.	?	Een koekoeksklok,	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig is,	loopt	altijd	goed.
		a cuckoo clock	which	from Sw.	comes	runs	always	well

Koekoeksklokken

die

uit Zw.

afkomstig zijn,

lopen

altijd

goed.

b'.		Koekoeksklokken,	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig zijn,	lopen	altijd	goed.
		cuckoo clocks	which	from Sw.	come	run	always	well

[+] B. Specific antecedents

The examples in (257) show that combinations of specific indefinite antecedents and restrictive relative clauses are perfectly acceptable. The restrictive relative clause serves to restrict the specific referent set of the antecedent, but the use of the indefinite article conveys that the noun phrase fails to uniquely identify the referent set for the hearer, that is, the resulting set still consists of more than one potential referent set.

257

a.	Een koekoeksklok	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig was,	liep	het best.
	a cuckoo clock	which	from Sw.	came	ran	the best
	'A cuckoo clock which came from Switzerland kept the best time.'

a'.		Twee koekoeksklokken	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig waren,	liepen	het best.
		two cuckoo clocks	which	from Sw.	came	ran	the best

b.	Hij	had	een koekoeksklok	die	uit Zw.	komt	uitgekozen.
	he	had	a cuckoo clock	which	from Sw.	comes	prt.-chosen
	'He had chosen a cuckoo clock which comes from Switzerland.'

b'.		Hij	had	twee koekoeksklokken	die	uit Zw.	komen	uitgekozen.
		he	had	two cuckoo clocks	which	from Sw.	come	prt.-chosen

Non-restrictive relative clauses, on the other hand, can less easily be combined with a specific indefinite antecedent. The sentences in (258), for example, are definitely marked, and may even require an appositive reading of the relative clause; cf. Section 3.1.3.

258

a.	??	Een (bepaalde) koekoeksklok,	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig was,	liep	het best.
		a particular cuckoo clock	which	from Sw.	came	ran	the best
		'A (certain) cuckoo clock, which came from Switzerland, kept the best time.'

b.	??	(Bepaalde) koekoeksklokken,	die uit Zw.	afkomstig waren,	liepen	het best.
		particular cuckoo clocks	which from Sw.	came	ran	the best

The sentences in (259) are acceptable, but not on the intended reading. Although the antecedent in these constructions has specific reference, the (present-tense) relative clauses provide information about the class as a whole. Thus, the most likely interpretation of these examples is one in which the additional information given in the relative clause applies to all cuckoo clocks, not just to the one(s) we have bought.

259

a.	#	Hij	had	een koekoeksklok,	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig is,	uitgekozen.
		he	had	a cuckoo clock	which	from Sw.	comes	prt.-chosen
		'We have chosen a cuckoo clock, which comes from Switzerland.'

b.	#	Hij	had	twee koekoeksklokken,	die uit Zw.	afkomstig zijn,	uitgekozen.
		he	had	two cuckoo clocks	which from Sw.	come	prt.-chosen

That it is not impossible for non-restrictive relative clauses to modify specific indefinite antecedents can be seen from the examples in (260), where the only possible reading is the intended one: the relative clauses provide additional information about the clocks under discussion.

260

a.	Ik	had	een dure klok,	die	uit Zwitserland	kwam,	gekocht.
	I	had	an expensive clock	which	from Switzerland	came	bought
	'I had bought an expensive clock which came from Switzerland.'

b.		Ik	had twee dure klokken,	die	uit Zwitserland	kwamen,	gekocht.
		I	had two expensive clocks	which	from Switzerland	came	bought

[+] C. Nonspecific antecedents

The examples in (261) show that nonspecific antecedents only accept restrictive relative clauses. This is not surprising given the difference in function between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. The speaker can readily use a restrictive relative in order to narrow down the set of possible, nonspecific referents: the primeless examples simply exclude all clocks that do not come from Switzerland. However, given that the identity of the referents in the referent set of the noun phrase is also unknown to him, the speaker is not able to provide more information about these referents in the form of a non-restrictive relative clause. As a result, the primed examples are only acceptable on a specific or generic reading of the noun phrase.

261

a.		Ik wil	mijn broer	alleen	een klok	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig is	geven.
		I want	my brother	only	a clock	which	from Sw.	comes	give

a'.

Ik wil mijn broer alleen een klok, die uit Zw. afkomstig is, geven.

b.		Ik wil	mijn broer	alleen	klokken	die	uit Zw.	afkomstig zijn	geven.
		I want	my brother	only	clocks	which	from Sw.	come	give

b'.

Ik wil mijn broer alleen klokken, die uit Zw. afkomstig zijn, geven.

[+] IV. Binding

The difference in semantic function of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses may also account for the fact that whereas restrictive clauses always allow binding into the relative clause, non-restrictive relative clauses only do so under certain circumstances. Example (262a) shows that the reflexive zichzelf can be bound by the proper noun Jan contained in the restrictive relative clause with the resulting interpretation that the book referred to is the one that Jan wrote about himself. Example (262b), in contrast, shows that this binding relation is blocked with the constituent Jan occurring in a non-restrictive relative clause.

262

a.	Het [boek over zichzelfi]j	datj	Jani	(onlangs)	geschreven	heeft,	is erg goed.
	the book about himself	that	Jan	recently	written	has	is very good
	'The book about himself which Jan (recently) has written, is very good.'

b.	*	[Het boek over zichzelfi]j ,	datj Jani	geschreven	heeft,	is erg goed.
		the book about himself	that Jan	written	has	is very good

If we take into consideration the function of the non-restrictive relative clause, we can exclude example (262b) for pragmatic reasons. Since the antecedent in (262b) has independent reference, the identifiability of the referent should not depend on the information given in the relative clause, which should only provide additional information about this antecedent. The fact that the antecedent has independent reference implies that the referent of the anaphor zichzelf is known, that is, bound by an implicit argument of the picture noun that refers to the author of the book (cf. 2.2.5.2). Consequently, we have to conclude that the identity of the author of the book is also known, which means that the information provided by the non-restrictive relative clause is superfluous. This makes the sentence infelicitous. This line of reasoning predicts that the sentence becomes acceptable if we add information to the non-restrictive relative clause that is not already implied. Example (263) shows that this is indeed the case: sentence (262b) becomes fully acceptable if we add the information that the book was written recently.

263

		[Het boek over zichzelfi]j ,	datj	Jani	onlangs	geschreven	heeft,	is erg goed.
		the book about himself	that	Jan	recently	written	has	is very good

Something similar holds for the possessive pronoun zijn'his' in example (264): the contrast between (264a) and (264b) shows that the pronoun can be bound by the proper noun Rembrandt if the latter is part of a restrictive relative clause, but not if it is part of a non-restrictive relative clause with the sole function of identifying the painter of the portrait. As soon as the relative clause provides other (new, focal) information, as in example (264c), the construction is acceptable.

264

a.	Het [portret van zijni zoon]j	datj Rembrandti schilderde,	hangt in zaal 10.
	the portrait of his son	that Rembrandt painted	hangs in room 10
	'The portrait of his son that Rembrandt painted is in room 10.'

b.	*	[Het portret van zijni zoon]j ,	datj Rembrandti schilderde,	hangt in zaal 10.
		the portrait of his son	which Rembrandt painted	hangs in room 10

c.		[Het portret van zijni zoon]j ,	datj Rembrandti schilderde in 1647,	hangt in zaal 10.
		the portrait of his son	which Rembrandt painted in 1647	hangs in room 10

[+] V. Negative polarity

The examples in (265) show that negative polarity items like ook maar iets'anything at all' can occur in a restrictive relative clause that modifies a universally quantified noun phrase, but not in a non-restrictive clause. The difference can be accounted for in terms of scope of the quantifier ifwe assume that a negative polarity item can be licensed by a universal quantifier. In example (265a) the quantifier alle'all' has scope over both the antecedent and the restrictive relative clause, and as a result also the expression ook maar iets falls within the scope of a quantifier. In (265b), on the other hand, the non-restrictive relative clause falls outside the scope of the quantifier, and as a result the negative polarity item is not licensed; note that the example is grammatical if we replace the negative polarity item by the existential quantifier pronoun iets.

265

a.	Alle atleten	die	ook maar iets	met de zaak	te maken	konden	hebben,	werden	geschorst.
	all athletes	who	ook maar something	with the case	to do	could	have,	were	suspended
	'All the athletes who could have anything to do with the case were suspended.'

b.	*	Alle atleten,	die	(*ook maar) iets	met de zaak	te maken	konden	hebben,	werden	geschorst.
		all athletes	who	ook maar something	with the case	to do	could	have	were	suspended

[+] VI. Stacking

Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses differ with regard to the possibility of stacking. Whereas stacking is fully acceptable in the case of restrictive relative clauses, stacking of non-restrictive relative clauses often leads to unacceptable or questionable results. Some examples are given in (266). For a detailed discussion of stacking of relative clauses, see Section 3.3.2.3.4.

266

a.	De studenti	[diei hier gisteren was]	[diei Engels studeert]	is erg aardig.
	the student	who here yesterday was	who English studies	is very nice
	'The student who was here yesterday who studies English, is very nice.'

b.	*?	De studenti ,	[diei hier gisteren was] ,	[diei Engels studeert] ,	is erg aardig.
		the student	who here yesterday was	who English studies	is very nice
		'The student, who was here yesterday, who studies English, is very nice.'

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Antecedent of Relative PronounAppositionAttributiveBindingNegationNegativeNegative PolarityPronounRelative PronounStacking

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