Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) | '{{hatnote|For details about relative clauses in English, see [[English relative clauses]].}}
A '''relative clause''' is a kind of [[subordinate clause]] that contains an element whose interpretation is provided by an [[antecedent (grammar)|antecedent]] on which the subordinate clause is grammatically [[dependent (grammar)|dependent]]; that is, there is an [[anaphora (linguistics)|anaphoric]] relation between the relativized element in the relative clause, and the antecedent on which it depends.<ref name="HP183">Rodney D. Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, ''A Student's Introduction to English Grammar'', CUP 2005, p. 183ff.</ref>
Typically, a relative clause modifies a [[noun]] or [[noun phrase]],<ref name="HP183" /> and uses some grammatical device to indicate that one of the arguments within the relative clause has the same referent as that noun or noun phrase. For example, in the sentence ''I met a man who wasn't there'', the subordinate clause ''who wasn't there'' is a relative clause, since it modifies the noun ''man'', and uses the pronoun ''who'' to indicate that the same "man" is referred to within the subordinate clause (in this case, as its [[subject (grammar)|subject]]).
In many European languages, relative clauses are introduced by a special class of [[pronoun]]s called ''[[relative pronoun]]s'';<ref>{{cite book|last= Kurzová |first= Helena | authorlink= |year=1981 |language=German |title=Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen | trans_title=Relative Clauses in the Indo-European Languages |series= |location=Hamburg |publisher= Buske |page=117 |isbn= 3-87118-458-6 |oclc=63317519 |ol=}}</ref> such as ''who'' in the example just given. In other languages, relative clauses may be marked in different ways: they may be introduced by a special class of conjunctions called ''[[relativizer]]s''; the main verb of the relative clause may appear in a special morphological variant; or a relative clause may be indicated by word order alone.<ref>{{cite book|last= Lehmann |first= Christian | authorlink= |year=1984 |language=German |title= Der Relativsatz | trans_title=Relative Clauses |series=Language universals series ; vol. 3 |location=Tübingen |publisher=G. Narr |page=438 |isbn=3-87808-982-1 |oclc=14358164 |ol=}}</ref> In some languages, more than one of these mechanisms may be possible.
==Types of relative clause==
===Bound and free===
A ''bound'' relative clause, the type most often considered, qualifies an explicit element (usually a [[noun]] or [[noun phrase]]) appearing in the main clause, and refers back to that element by means of some explicit or implicit device within the relative clause.
The relative clause may also be called the ''embedded clause''; the main (or higher-level) clause in which it is embedded is also called the ''matrix clause''. The noun in the main clause that the relative clause modifies is called the ''[[Head (grammar)|head]] noun'', or (particularly when referred back to by a relative pronoun) the ''[[antecedent (grammar)|antecedent]]''.
For example, in the English sentence "The man whom I saw yesterday went home", the relative clause "whom I saw yesterday" modifies the head noun ''man'', and the relative pronoun ''whom'' refers back to the referent of that noun. The sentence is equivalent to the following two sentences: "I saw a man yesterday. The man went home." Note that the shared argument need not fulfill the same role in both clauses; in this example the same man is referred to by the [[subject (grammar)|subject]] of the matrix clause, but the [[direct object]] of the relative clause.
A '''free relative clause''', on the other hand, does not have an explicit antecedent external to itself. Instead, the relative clause itself takes the place of an argument in the matrix clause. For example, in the English sentence "I like what I see", the clause ''what I see'' is a free relative clause, because it has no antecedent, but itself serves as the [[object (grammar)|object]] of the verb ''like'' in the main clause. (An alternative analysis is that the free relative clause has [[zero (linguistics)|zero]] as its antecedent.)
===Restrictive and non-restrictive===
Bound relative clauses may or may not be [[restrictive]]. A '''restrictive''', or '''defining''', relative clause modifies the meaning of its head word (restricts its possible referent), whereas a non-restrictive (''non-defining'') relative clause merely provides supplementary information. For example:
*''The man '''who lives in this house''' has not been seen for days.'' This (''who lives in this house'') is a restrictive relative clause, modifying the meaning of ''man'', and essential to the sentence (if the clause were omitted, it would no longer be known which man is being referred to).
*''The mayor, '''who lives in this house''', has not been seen for days.'' This is a non-restrictive relative clause, since it provides supplementary information about the mayor, but is not essential to the sentence – if the clause were omitted, it would still be known which mayor is meant.
In speaking it is natural to make slight pauses around non-restrictive clauses, and in English this is shown in writing by [[comma]]s (as in the examples). However many languages do not distinguish the two types of relative clause in this way. Another difference in English is that only restrictive relative clauses may be introduced with ''that'' or use the "zero" relative pronoun (see [[English relative clauses]] for details).
A non-restrictive relative clause may have a whole sentence as its antecedent rather than a specific noun phrase; for example:
*''The cat was allowed on the bed, '''which annoyed the dog'''.''
Here, ''which'' refers back (presumably) not to the bed or the cat, but to the entire [[proposition]] expressed in the main clause, namely the circumstance that the cat was allowed on the bed.
===Finite and non-finite===
Relative clauses may be either finite clauses (as in the examples above) or [[non-finite clause]]s. An example of a non-finite relative clause in English is the [[infinitive clause]] ''on whom to rely'', in the sentence "She is the person on whom to rely".
==Ways of forming relative clauses==
Languages differ in many ways in how relative clauses are expressed:
#How the role of the shared noun phrase is indicated in the embedded clause.
#How the two clauses are joined together.
#Where the embedded clause is placed relative to the head noun (in the process indicating which noun phrase in the main clause is modified).
For example, the English sentence "The man that I saw yesterday went home" can be described as follows:
#The role of the shared noun in the embedded clause is indicated by ''gapping'' (i.e. in the embedded clause "that I saw <u> </u> yesterday", a gap is left after "saw" to indicate where the shared noun would go).
#The clauses are joined by the ''complementizer'' "that".
#The embedded clause is placed ''after'' the head noun "the man".
The following sentences indicate various possibilities (only some of which are grammatical in English):
*"The man [that I saw yesterday] went home". (A ''complementizer'' linking the two clauses with a ''gapping'' strategy indicating the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause. One possibility in English. Very common cross-linguistically.)
*"The man [I saw yesterday] went home". (Gapping strategy, with no word joining the clauses—also known as a [[reduced relative clause]]. One possibility in English. Used in [[Arabic language|Arabic]] when the head noun is [[definiteness|indefinite]], as in "a man" instead of "the man".)
*"The man [whom I saw yesterday] went home". (A [[relative pronoun]] indicating the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause — in this case, the direct object. Used in formal English, as in [[Latin]], [[German language|German]] or [[Russian language|Russian]].)
*"The man [seen by me yesterday] went home". (A [[reduced relative clause]], in this case [[passive voice|passivized]]. One possibility in English.)
*"The man [that I saw him yesterday] went home". (A complementizer linking the two sentences with a [[resumptive pronoun]] indicating the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause, as in [[Arabic language|Arabic]], [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Persian language|Persian]].)
*"The man [that him I saw yesterday] went home". (Similar to the previous, but with the resumptive pronoun fronted. This occurs in modern [[Greek language|Greek]] and as one possibility in modern [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]; the combination ''that him'' of complementizer and resumptive pronoun behaves similar to a unitary relative pronoun.)
*"The [I saw yesterday]'s man went home". (Preceding relative clause with gapping and use of a possessive particle — as normally used in a [[genitive construction]] — to link the relative clause to the head noun. This occurs in many Sino-Tibetan languages and possibly developed from "relative clause + noun" > "nominalized clause + noun" > "genitive construction".<ref>http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2008_4_03_2641.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2008_4_05_5653.pdf</ref> )
*"The [I saw yesterday] man went home". (Preceding relative clause with gapping and no linking word, as in [[Japanese language|Japanese]].)
*"The man [of my seeing yesterday] went home". ([[Nominalization|Nominalized]] relative clause, as in [[Turkish language|Turkish]].)
*"[Which man I saw yesterday], that man went home". (A ''correlative'' structure, as in [[Hindi]].)
*"[I saw the man yesterday] went home." (An ''unreduced, internally headed'' relative clause, as in [[Standard Tibetan|Tibetan]] or [[Navajo language|Navajo]].)
===Strategies for indicating the role of the shared noun in the relative clause===
There are four main strategies for indicating the role of the shared noun phrase in the embedded clause. These are typically listed in order of the degree to which the noun in the relative clause has been reduced, from most to least:
# Gap strategy or gapped relative clause
# Relative pronoun
# Pronoun retention
# Nonreduction
====Gapped relative clause====
In this strategy, there is simply a gap in the relative clause where the shared noun would go. This is normal in English, for example, and also in Chinese and Japanese. This is the most common type of relative clause, especially in [[subject–object–verb|verb-final]] languages with prenominal relative clauses, but is also widespread among languages with postnominal externally headed relative clauses.
There may or may not be any marker used to join the relative and main clauses. (Note that languages with a case-marked relative pronoun are technically not considered to employ the gapping strategy even though they do in fact have a gap, since the case of the relative pronoun indicates the role of the shared noun.) Often the form of the verb is different from that in main clauses and is to some degree nominalized, as in Turkish and in English [[reduced relative clause]]s.<ref>{{cite book | last=Carrol | first=David W | edition=5 | title=Psychology of Language | publisher=Thomson & Wadsworth | location=Belmont | year=2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last=Townsend | first=David J |author2=Thomas G Bever | title=Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules | year=2001 | publisher=MIT Press | location=Cambridge | pages=247–9}}</ref>
In non-verb-final languages, apart from languages like [[Thai language|Thai]] and [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]] with very strong politeness distinctions in their grammars{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}}, gapped relative clauses tend however to be restricted to positions high up in the accessibility hierarchy. With obliques and genitives, non-verb-final languages that do not have politeness restrictions on pronoun use tend to use pronoun retention. English is unusual in that ''all'' roles in the embedded clause can be indicated by gapping: e.g. "I saw the man who is my friend", but also (in progressively less accessible positions cross-linguistically, according to the ''[[accessibility hierarchy]]'' described below) "... who I know", "... who I gave a book to", "... who I spoke with", "... who I run slower than". Usually, languages with gapping disallow it beyond a certain level in the accessibility hierarchy, and switch to a different strategy at this point. [[Classical Arabic]], for example, only allows gapping in the subject and sometimes the direct object; beyond that, a resumptive pronoun must be used. Some languages have no allowed strategies at all past a certain point — e.g. in many [[Austronesian languages]], such as [[Tagalog]], all relative clauses must have the shared noun serving the subject role in the embedded clause. In these languages, relative clauses with shared nouns serving "disallowed" roles can be expressed by [[passive voice|passivizing]] the embedded sentence, thereby moving the noun in the embedded sentence into the subject position. This, for example, would transform "The man who I gave a book to" into "The man who was given a book by me". Generally, languages such as this "conspire" to implement general relativization by allowing passivization from ''all'' positions – hence a sentence equivalent to "The man who is run slower than by me" is grammatical. Note also that gapping is often used in conjunction with case-marked relative pronouns (since the relative pronoun indicates the case role in the embedded clause), but this is not necessary (e.g. Chinese and Japanese both using gapping in conjunction with an indeclinable complementizer).
====Relative pronoun type====
This is in fact a type of gapped relative clause, but is distinguished by the fact that the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause is indicated indirectly by the case marking of the marker (the [[relative pronoun]]) used to join the main and embedded clauses. All languages which use relative pronouns have them in clause-initial position: though one could conceivably imagine a clause-final relative pronoun analogous to an adverbial subordinator in that position, they are unknown.
Note that some languages have what are described as "relative pronouns" (in that they agree with some properties of the head noun, such as number and gender) but which don't actually indicate the case role of the shared noun in the embedded clause. [[Classical Arabic]] in fact has "relative pronouns" which are case-marked, but which agree in case with the ''head'' noun. Case-marked relative pronouns in the strict sense are almost entirely confined to European languages{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, where they are widespread except among the [[Celtic languages|Celtic family]] and [[Indo-Aryan languages|Indo-Aryan family]]. The influence of Spanish has led to their adaption by a very small number of [[indigenous languages of the Americas|Native American languages]], of which the best-known are the [[Keresan languages]].<ref>[http://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_aco WALS - Acoma]</ref>
====Pronoun retention type====
In this type, the position relativized is indicated by means of a [[personal pronoun]] in the same syntactic position as would ordinarily be occupied by a noun phrase of that type in the main clause — known as a ''[[resumptive pronoun]]''. It is equivalent to saying "The man who I saw <u>him</u> yesterday went home". Pronoun retention is very frequently used for relativization of inaccessible positions on the accessibility hierarchy. In [[Persian language|Persian]] and [[Classical Arabic]], for example, resumptive pronouns are required when the embedded role is other than the subject or direct object, and optional in the case of the direct object. Resumptive pronouns are common in non-verb-final [[languages of Africa]] and Asia, and also used by the Celtic languages of northwest Europe and [[Romanian language|Romanian]] ("Omul pe care <u>l</u>-am văzut ieri a mers acasă"/"The man who I saw <u>him</u> yesterday went home"). They also occur in deeply embedded positions in English, as in "That's the girl that I don't know what <u>she</u> did",<ref name="mckee">{{citation|title=Resumptive Pronouns in English Relative Clauses|first1=Cecile|last1=McKee|first2=Dana|last2=McDaniel|journal=Language Acquisition|volume=9|number=2|year=2001|pages=113–156|doi=10.1207/s15327817la0902_01}}.</ref> although this is sometimes considered non-standard.
Only a very small number of languages, of which the best known is [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]], have pronoun retention as their sole grammatical type of relative clause.
====Nonreduction type====
In the nonreduction type, unlike the other three, the shared noun occurs as a ''full-fledged noun phrase'' in the embedded clause, which has the form of a full independent clause. Typically, it is the head noun in the main clause that is reduced or missing. Some languages use relative clauses of this type with the normal strategy of embedding the relative clause next to the head noun. These languages are said to have ''internally headed'' relative clauses, which would be similar to the (ungrammatical) English structure "[You see the girl over there] is my friend" or "I took [you see the girl over there] out on a date". This is used, for example, in [[Navajo language|Navajo]], which uses a special relative verb (as with some other Native American languages).
A second strategy is the ''correlative''-clause strategy used by [[Hindi]] and other [[Indo-Aryan languages]], as well as [[Bambara language|Bambara]]. This strategy is equivalent to saying "Which girl you see over there, she is my daughter" or "Which knife I killed my friend with, the police found that knife". It is "correlative" because of the corresponding "which ... that ..." demonstratives or "which ... she/he/it ..." pronouns, which indicate the respective nouns being equated. Note that the shared noun can either be repeated entirely in the main clause or reduced to a pronoun. Note also that there is no need to front the shared noun in such a sentence. For example, in the second example above, Hindi would actually say something equivalent "I killed my friend with which knife, the police found that knife".
Dialects of some European languages, such as Italian, do use the nonreduction type in forms that could be glossed in English as "The man just passed us by, he introduced me to the chancellor here."
In general, however, nonreduction is restricted to verb-final languages, though it is more common among those that are [[head-marking language|head-marking]].
===Strategies for joining the relative clause to the main clause===
The following are some of the common strategies for joining the two clauses:
*Use of an indeclinable particle (specifically, a [[relativizer]]) inserted into the sentence, placed next to the modified noun; the embedded clause is likewise inserted into the appropriate position, typically placed on the other side of the complementizer. This strategy is very common and arguably occurs in English with the word ''that'' ("the man that I saw"), though this interpretation of "that" as something other than a relative pronoun is controversial (see [[#English|below]]). In the modern [[varieties of Arabic]] (using ''illi'' placed after the modified noun); in [[Chinese language|Chinese]] (using ''de'' placed before the modified noun); and in [[Japanese language|Japanese]] (using ''no'' placed before the modified noun).
*Use of a [[relative pronoun]]. Prototypically, a relative pronoun agrees with the head noun in gender, number, definiteness, animacy, etc., but adopts the [[grammatical case|case]] that the shared noun assumes in the ''embedded'', not matrix, clause. This is the case in a number of conservative European languages, such as [[Latin]], [[German language|German]] and [[Russian language|Russian]]. Many languages also have similar linking words common termed "relative pronouns" that agree in some way with the head noun, but do not adopt the case role of the embedded clause. In English, for example, the use of ''who'' vs. ''which'' agrees with the animacy of the head noun, but there is no case agreement except in the formal English contrast ''who'' vs. ''whom'' (which is often used incorrectly, if at all, in speech). Similarly, in [[Classical Arabic]], there is a relative pronoun that agrees in number, gender, [[definiteness]] ''and'' case with the head noun (rather than taking the case role of the noun in the embedded clause). Languages with prototypical relative pronouns typically use the gapping strategy for indicating the role in the embedded clause, since the relative pronoun itself indicates the role by its case. ([[Classical Arabic]], where the case marking indicates something else, uses a [[resumptive pronoun]].) Some linguists prefer to use the term ''relative pronoun'' only for the prototypical cases (but in this case it's unclear what to call the non-prototypical cases).
*Directly inserting the embedded clause in the matrix clause at the appropriate position, with no word used to join them. This is common, for example, in English (cf. "The man I saw yesterday went home"), and is used in [[Classical Arabic]] in relative clauses that modify indefinite nouns.
*By [[nominalization|nominalizing]] the relative clause (e.g. converting it to a participial construction). Generally, no relative pronoun or complementizer is used. This occurs, for example, in [[reduced relative clause]]s in English (e.g. "The man seen by me yesterday went home" or "The man planning to go home soon is my friend"). Formal German makes common use of such participial relative clauses, which can become extremely long. This is also the normal strategy in [[Turkish language|Turkish]], which has sentences equivalent to "I ate the potato of Hasan's giving to Sina" (in place of "I ate the potato that Hasan gave to Sina"). Note that this can be viewed as a situation in which the "complementizer" is attached to the verb of the embedded clause (e.g. in English, "-ing" or "-ed" can be viewed as a type of complementizer).
===Position of the head noun with respect to the relative clause===
The positioning of a relative clause before or after a head noun is related to the more general concept of [[Branching (linguistics)|branching]] in linguistics. Languages that place relative clauses after their head noun (so-called ''head-initial'' or ''VO'' languages) generally also have adjectives and [[genitive construction|genitive modifier]]s following the head noun, as well as verbs preceding their objects. [[French language|French]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]] and [[Arabic language|Arabic]] are prototypical languages of this sort. Languages that place relative clauses before their head noun (so-called ''head-final'' or ''OV'' languages) generally also have adjectives and [[genitive construction|genitive modifier]]s preceding the head noun, as well as verbs following their objects. [[Turkish language|Turkish]] and [[Japanese language|Japanese]] are prototypical languages of this sort. Not all languages fit so easily into these categories. English, for example, is generally head-first, but has adjectives preceding their head nouns, and [[genitive construction]]s with both preceding and following modifiers ("the friend of my father" vs. "my father's friend"). [[Chinese language|Chinese]] has the ''VO'' order, with verb preceding object, but otherwise is generally head-final.
Various possibilities for ordering are:
*Relative clause following the head noun, as in English, [[French language|French]] or [[Arabic language|Arabic]].
*Relative clause preceding the head noun, as in [[Turkish language|Turkish]], [[Japanese language|Japanese]], or [[Chinese language|Chinese]].
*Head noun ''within'' the relative clause (an ''internally headed'' relative clause). An example of such a language is [[Navajo language|Navajo]]. These languages are said to have [[#Nonreduction type|nonreduced]] relative clauses. These languages have a structure equivalent to "[I saw the man yesterday] went home".
*Adjoined relative clause. These languages have the relative clause completely outside the main clause, and use a correlative structure to link the two. These languages also have [[#Nonreduction type|nonreduced]] relative clauses. [[Hindi]] is the most well known such language, and have a structure similar to "Which man I saw yesterday, that man went home" or (with non-fronting of the relativized noun in the relative clause) "I saw which man yesterday, that man went home". Another example is [[Warlpiri language|Warlpiri]], which constructs relative clauses of a form similar to "I saw the man yesterday, which he was going home". However, it is sometimes said these languages have no relative clauses at all, since the sentences of this form can equally well translate as "I saw the man who was going home yesterday" or "I saw the man yesterday when/while he was going home".
==Accessibility hierarchy==
The antecedent of the relative clause (that is, the noun that is modified by it) can in theory be the subject of the main clause, or its object, or any other [[verb argument]]. In many languages, however, especially rigidly [[left-branching]], [[dependent-marking language]]s with prenominal relative clauses,<ref>Lehmann, Christian (1986). On the typology of relative clauses. ''Linguistics'', 24(4), 663-680. {{doi|10.1515/ling.1986.24.4.663}}</ref> there are major restrictions on the role the antecedent may have ''in the relative clause''.
[[Edward L. Keenan]] and [[Bernard Comrie]] noted that these roles can be ranked cross-linguistically in the following order from most accessible to least accessible:<ref>Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar, [[Linguistic Inquiry]], 8(1), 63-99</ref><ref>Comrie, Bernard; ''Language Universals and Linguistic Typology''; pp. 156-163; ISBN 0-226-11434-1</ref>
:Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Oblique > Genitive > Object of comparative
[[Ergative–absolutive]] languages have a similar hierarchy:
:[[Absolutive case|Absolutive]] > [[Ergative case|Ergative]] > Indirect Object > etc. (same as above)
This order is referred to as the '''accessibility hierarchy'''. If a language can relativize positions lower in the accessibility hierarchy, it can always relativize positions higher up, but not vice versa. For example, [[Malagasy language|Malagasy]] can relativize only subject and [[Chukchi language|Chukchi]] only absolutive arguments, whilst [[Basque language|Basque]] can relativize absolutives, ergatives and indirect objects, but not obliques or genitives or objects of comparatives. Similar hierarchies have been proposed in other circumstances, e.g. for pronominal reflexes.
[[English language|English]] can relativize all positions in the hierarchy. Here are some examples of the NP and relative clause usage from English:
{| align="center"
!Position !! With explicit relative pronoun !! With omitted relative pronoun !! In formal English
|-
|[[subject (grammar)|Subject]] || That’s the man [who ran away]. || — || That’s the man [who ran away].
|-
|[[Direct object]] || That’s the man [who I saw yesterday]. || That's the man [I saw yesterday]. || That’s the man [whom I saw yesterday].
|-
|[[Indirect object]] || That’s the man [who I gave the letter to]. || That’s the man [I gave the letter to]. || That’s the man [to whom I gave the letter].
|-
|[[oblique case|Oblique]] || That’s the man [who I was talking about]. || That’s the man [I was talking about]. || That’s the man [about whom I was talking].
|-
|[[Genitive]] || That’s the man [whose sister I know]. || — || That’s the man [whose sister I know].
|-
|Obj of Comp || That’s the man [who I am taller than]. || That’s the man [I am taller than]. || That’s the man [than whom I am taller].
|}
Some other examples:
{| align="center"
!Position !! Example
|-
|[[subject (grammar)|Subject]] || The girl [who came late] is my sister.
|-
|[[Direct object]] || I gave a rose to the girl [that Kate saw].
|-
|[[Indirect object]] || John knows the girl [I wrote a letter to].
|-
|[[oblique case|Oblique]] || I found the rock [which the robbers had hit John over the head with].
|-
|[[Genitive]] || The girl [whose father died] told me she was sad.
|-
|Obj of Comp || The first person [I can't run faster than] will win a million dollars.
|}
Languages which cannot relativize directly on noun phrases low in the accessibility hierarchy can sometimes use alternative [[grammatical voice|voices]] to "raise" the relevant noun phrase so that it can be relativized. The most common example is the use of [[applicative voice]]s to relativize obliques, but in such languages as Chukchi [[antipassive voice|antipassives]] are used to raise ergative arguments to absolutive.
For example, a language that can relativize only subjects could say this:
*The girl [who likes me] came to visit.
But not:
**The girl [whom I like] came to visit.
**The girl [whom I gave a rose to] came to visit.
**The girl [whom I watched a movie with] came to visit.
**The girl [whose father I know] came to visit.
**The girl [whom I know the father of] came to visit. (''equivalent to previous'')
**The girl [whom I am taller than] came to visit.
These languages might form an equivalent sentence by [[passive voice|passivization]]:
*The girl [who was liked by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was given a rose by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was watched a movie with by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was known the father of by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was been taller than by me] came to visit.
Note that these passivized sentences get progressively more ungrammatical in English as they move down the accessibility hierarchy; the last two, in particular, are so ungrammatical as to be almost unparsable by English speakers. However, those languages with severe restrictions on which roles can be relativized are precisely those that can passivize almost any position, and hence the last two sentences would be normal in these languages.
A further example is languages that can relativize only subjects and direct objects. Hence the following would be possible:
*The girl [who I like] came to visit.
However, the other ungrammatical examples above would still be ungrammatical. These languages often allow an oblique object to be moved to the direct object slot by the use of the so-called ''[[applicative voice]]'', similar to how the [[passive voice]] moves an oblique object to the subject position. The above examples expressed in an applicative voice might be similar to the following (in not necessarily grammatical English):
*The girl [who I gave a rose] came to visit.
*The girl [who I with-watched a movie] came to visit.
*The girl [who I (of-)know the father] came to visit.
*The girl [who I out-tall] came to visit.
Modern grammars may use the accessibility hierarchy to order productions — e.g. in [[Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar]] the hierarchy corresponds to
the order of elements on the ''subcat'' list, and interacts with other principles
in explanations of binding facts. The hierarchy also figures in
[[Lexical Functional Grammar]] where it is known as Syntactic
Rank or the Relational Hierarchy.
==Examples==
===Indo-European languages===
====English====
{{main|English relative clauses}}
In English, a relative clause follows the noun it modifies. It is generally indicated by a relative pronoun at the start of the clause, although sometimes simply by word order. If the relative pronoun is the object of the verb in the relative clause, it comes at the beginning of the clause even though it would come at the end of an independent clause ("He is the man ''whom'' I saw", not "He is the man I saw ''whom''").
The choice of relative pronoun can be affected by whether the clause modifies a human or non-human noun, by whether the clause is restrictive or not,<ref>{{cite book |last=Kordić |first=Snježana |authorlink=Snježana Kordić |editor1-last=Suprun |editor1-first=Adam E |editor1-link= |editor2-last=Jachnow |editor2-first=Helmut |editor2-link= |title=Slavjano-germanskie jazykovye paralleli/Slawisch-germanische Sprachparallelen |trans_title= |series=Sovmestnyj issledovatel'skij sbornik slavistov universitetov v Minske i Bochume |publisher=Belorusskij gosudarstvennyj universitet |page=165 |language=German |chapter=Pronomina im Antezendenten und Restriktivität/Nicht-Restriktivität von Relativsätzen im Kroatoserbischen und Deutschen |trans_chapter=Pronouns in antecedents and restrictive / non-restrictive relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian and German |url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/426662.PRONOMINA_IM_ANTEZEDENT.PDF |location=Minsk |year=1996 |isbn= |oclc=637166830 |archivedate=29 August 2012 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6AHPw0DET |accessdate=29 August 2012}}</ref> and by the role (subject, direct object, or the like) of the relative pronoun in the relative clause.
*For a human antecedent, "who", "whom", or "that" is usually used ("He is the person ''who'' saw me", "He is the person ''whom'' I saw", "He is the person ''that'' I saw"). For a non-human antecedent, only "that" or "which" is used.
*For a non-human antecedent in a non-restrictive clause, only "which" is used ("The tree, ''which'' fell, is over there"); while either "which" or "that" may be used in a restrictive clause ("The tree ''which'' fell is over there", "The tree ''that'' fell is over there"){{mdash}}but some styles and prescriptive grammars require the use of "that" in the restrictive context).
*The relative pronoun pair "who or whom" must take the ''subjective'' case form ("who") if it is the subject of the relative clause ("He is the policeman who saw me"); and, in formal usage, the ''objective'' case form ("whom") if it is the object of the verb or preposition in the relative clause ("He is the policeman whom I saw", "He is the policeman whom I talked to", "He is the policeman to whom I talked"); but in informal usage "whom" is often replaced by "who".
In English, as in some other languages (such as French; see below), [[restrictiveness|non-restrictive]] relative clauses are set off with commas, but restrictive ones are not:
*"I met a man and a woman yesterday. The woman, ''who had a thick French accent'', was very pretty." (non-restrictive — does not narrow down who is being talked about)
*"I met two women yesterday, one with a thick French accent and one with a mild Italian one. The woman ''who had the thick French accent'' was very pretty." (restrictive — adds information about who is being referred to)
The status of "that" as a relative pronoun is not universally agreed. Traditional grammars treat "that" as a relative pronoun, but not all contemporary grammars do: e.g. the [[Cambridge Grammar of the English Language]] (pp. 1056–7) makes a case for treating "that" as a subordinator instead of a relative pronoun; and the [[British National Corpus]] treats "that" as a subordinating conjunction even when it introduces relative clauses. One motivation for the different treatment of "that" is that there are differences between "that" and "which" (e.g., one can say "in which" but not "in that", etc.).
====French====
The system of relative pronouns in [[French language|French]] is as complicated as, but similar in many ways to, the system in English.
When the pronoun is to act as the direct object of the relative clause, ''{{lang|fr|que}}'' is generally used, although ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'', which is inflected for grammatical gender and number, is sometimes used in order to give more precision. For example, any of the following is correct and would translate to "I talked to his/her father and mother, whom I already knew":
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec son père et sa mère, '''laquelle''' (f. sing.) je connaissais déjà.}}''
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec son père et sa mère, '''lesquels''' (m. pl.) je connaissais déjà.}}''
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec son père et sa mère, '''que''' je connaissais déjà.}}''
However, in the first sentence, "whom I already knew" refers only to the mother; in the second, it refers to both parents; and in the third, as in the English sentence, it could refer either only to the mother, or to both parents.
When the pronoun is to act as the subject of the relative clause, ''{{lang|fr|qui}}'' is generally used, though as before, ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' may be used instead for greater precision. (This is less common than the use of ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' with direct objects, however, since verbs in French often reflect the grammatical number of their subjects.)
When the pronoun is to act in a possessive sense, where the preposition ''de'' (of/from) would normally be used, the pronoun ''{{lang|fr|dont}}'' ("whose") is used, but does not act as a [[determiner (linguistics)|determiner]] for the noun "possessed":
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec une femme '''dont''' le fils est mon collègue.}}'' ("I spoke with a woman whose son I work with." - ''lit.'', "I spoke with a woman ''of whom'' the son is my colleague.")
This construction is also used in non-possessive cases where the pronoun replaces an object marked by ''{{lang|fr|de}}'':
:''{{lang|fr|C'est l'homme '''dont''' j'ai parlé.}}'' ("That's the man '''of whom''' I spoke.")
More generally, in modern French, ''{{lang|fr|dont}}'' can signal the topic of the following clause, without replacing anything in this clause:
:''{{lang|fr|C'est un homme '''dont''' je crois qu'il doit très bien gagner sa vie.}}'' ("That's a man '''about whom''' I believe that he must make a lot of money.")
When the pronoun is to act as the object of a preposition (other than when ''{{lang|fr|dont}}'' is used), ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' is generally used, though ''{{lang|fr|qui}}'' can be used if the antecedent is human. The preposition always appears before the pronoun, and the prepositions ''{{lang|fr|de}}'' and ''{{lang|fr|à}}'' (at/to) contract with ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' to form ''{{lang|fr|duquel}}'' and ''{{lang|fr|auquel}}'', or with ''{{lang|fr|lesquel(le)s}}'' to form ''{{lang|fr|desquel(le)s}}'' and ''{{lang|fr|auxquel(le)s}}''.
====German====
Aside from their highly inflected forms, [[German language|German]] relative pronouns are less complicated than English. There are two varieties. The more common one is based on the definite article ''der'', ''die'', ''das'', but with distinctive forms in the genitive (''dessen'', ''deren'') and in the dative plural (''denen''). Historically this is related to English ''that''. The second, which is more literary and used for emphasis, is the relative use of ''welcher'', ''welche'', ''welches'', comparable with English ''which''. As in most Germanic languages, including Old English, both of these inflect according to gender, case and number. They take their gender and number from the noun they modify, but the case from their function in their own clause.
:''Das Haus, in dem ich wohne, ist sehr alt.''
::The house in which I live is very old.
The relative pronoun ''dem'' is neuter singular to agree with ''Haus'', but dative because it follows a preposition in its own clause. On the same basis, it would be possible to substitute the pronoun ''welchem''.
However, German uses the uninflecting ''was'' ('what') as a relative pronoun when the antecedent is ''alles'', ''etwas'' or ''nichts'' ('everything', 'something', 'nothing'.).
:''Alles, was Jack macht, gelingt ihm.''
::Everything that Jack does is a success.
In German, all relative clauses are marked with commas.
====Spanish====
See [[Spanish pronouns#Relative pronouns|Relative pronouns]] in the Spanish pronouns article.
====Latin====
In [[Latin]], relative clauses follow the noun phrases they modify, and are always introduced using relative pronouns. Relative pronouns, like other pronouns in Latin, agree with their antecedents in [[grammatical gender|gender]] and [[grammatical number|number]], but not in [[grammatical case|case]]: a relative pronoun's case reflects its role in the relative clause it introduces, while its antecedent's case reflects the antecedent's role in the clause that contains the relative clause. (Nonetheless, it is possible for the pronoun and antecedent to be in the same case.) For example:
:'''''Urbēs''', '''quae''' sunt magnae, videntur. (''The '''cities''', '''which''' are large, are being seen.'')
:'''''Urbēs''', '''quās''' vīdī, erant magnae.'' (''The '''cities''', '''which''' I saw, were large.'')
In the former example, ''urbēs'' and ''quae'' both function as [[subject (grammar)|subjects]] in their respective clauses, so both are in the nominative case; and due to gender and number agreement, both are feminine and plural. In the latter example, both are still feminine and plural, and ''urbēs'' is still in the nominative case, but ''quae'' has been replaced by ''quās'', its accusative-case counterpart, to reflect its role as the [[direct object]] of ''vīdī''.
For more information on the forms of Latin relative pronouns, ''see'' [[Latin declension#Relative pronouns|the section on relative pronouns in the article on Latin declension]].
====Ancient Greek====
[[Ancient Greek]] follows the same rule as Latin.
*αἱ πόλεις, ἃς εἶδον, μεγάλαι εἰσίν.
:hai póleis, hàs eîdon, megálai eisin.
:The cities that I saw were large.
The Ancient Greek relative pronoun ὅς, ἥ, ὅ (''hós, {{Unicode|hḗ}}, hó'') is unrelated to the Latin word, since it derives from [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] {{PIE|*yos}}: in [[Proto-Greek language|Proto-Greek]], ''y'' before a vowel usually changed to ''h'' ([[debuccalization]]). [[Cognate]]s include [[Sanskrit]] ''yas, yā, yad'' (where ''o'' changed to short ''a'').<ref>{{LSJ|o(/s1|ὅς|ref}}</ref>
The Greek definite article ὁ, ἡ, τό (''ho, hē, tó'') has a different origin, since it is related to Sanskrit ''sa, sā'' and [[Latin]] ''is-tud''.<ref>{{LSJ|o(1|ὁ|shortref}}</ref>
====Serbo-Croatian====
[[Serbo-Croatian]] uses exactly the same principle as Latin does.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gallis |first=Arne | authorlink= |year=1956 |title=The syntax of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian: Viewed on a historical basis |url= |series= |location=Oslo | publisher=I Kommisjon Hos H. Aschehoug |page=186 |isbn= |oclc=601586 |lccn= |ol= |archivedate=| archiveurl= |accessdate=}}</ref> The following sentences are the Latin examples translated to Serbo-Croatian (the same sentences apply to the Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin standard variants of the [[pluricentric language]]):
:{||-
| ''Gradovi, '' || '''''koji''''' || ''su'' || ''veliki'', || ''vide'' || ''se''.
|-
|the cities:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || which:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || are:<small>PR.3.PL</small> || large:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || see:<small>PR.3.PL</small> || itself:<small>Refl</small>
|-
| colspan=6 | "The cities, which are large, are being seen."
|}
:{||-
| ''Gradovi, '' || '''''koje''''' || ''sam'' || ''vidio'', || ''bili'' || ''su'' || ''veliki''.
|-
|the cities:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || which:<small>ACC.m.PL</small> || I am:<small>AUX.1.SG</small> || saw:<small>AP.m.SG</small> || were:<small>AP.m.PL </small> || are:<small>AUX.3.PL</small> || large:<small>NOM.m.PL</small>
|-
| colspan=7 | "The cities, which I saw, were large."
|}
In the first sentence, ''koji'' is in [[nominative]], and in the second ''koje'' is in [[accusative]]. Both words are two case forms of the same [[relative pronoun]], that is inflicted for [[Grammatical gender|gender]] (here: masculine), [[Grammatical number|number]] (here: plural), and [[Grammatical case|case]].
An alternative relativizing strategy is the use of the non-declinable word ''što'' 'that' to introduce a relative clause.<ref name=KordiGerm>{{cite book|last=Kordić |first=Snježana| authorlink=Snježana Kordić |year=1999 |language=German |title=Der Relativsatz im Serbokroatischen| trans_title=Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian |series=Studies in Slavic Linguistics ; vol. 10 |location=Munich |publisher= Lincom Europa |page=330 |isbn=3-89586-573-7 |oclc=42422661 |ol=2863535W}}</ref> This word is used together with a [[resumptive pronoun]], i.e. a [[personal pronoun]] that agrees in gender and number with the [[antecedent (grammar)|antecedent]], while its case form depends on its function in the relative clause.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Auwera, Johan van der |author2= Kučanda, Dubravko |title=Pronoun or conjunction - the Serbo-Croatian invariant relativizer ''što'' |trans_title= |url= |language= |journal=Linguistics |volume=23 |issue=6 |pages=917–962 |year=1985 |issn=0024-3949 |format= |jstor= |doi= }}</ref> The resumptive pronoun never appears in subject function.
:{||-
| ''Onaj'' || ''poznanik'' || '''''što''''' || ''si'' || '''''ga''''' || ''pozdravio''...
|-
|that:<small>NOM.m.SG</small> || acquaintance:<small>NOM.m.SG</small> || that || be:<small>AUX.2.SG</small> || him:<small>ACC</small> || greet:<small>AP.m.SG</small>
|-
| colspan=6 | "That acquaintance that (whom) you have said 'hello' to..."
|}
Relative clauses are relatively frequent in the modern Serbo-Croatian<ref name=KordiGerm/> since they have expanded as attributes at the expense of the [[participle]]s performing that function.<ref>{{cite book|last=Kordić |first=Snježana| authorlink=Snježana Kordić |year=1997 |title= Serbo-Croatian |url= |series=Languages of the World/Materials ; vol. 148 |location= Munich & Newcastle | publisher= Lincom Europa | pages=57–60 |isbn=3-89586-161-8 |oclc=37959860 |lccn= |ol=2863538W |archivedate=| archiveurl= |accessdate=}}</ref> The most frequently used relative pronoun is ''koji''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Maček |first=Dora| authorlink= |year=1986 |language= |title=Relativization in English and Serbo-Croatian | trans_title= |url= |series= The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian - English contrastive project, New studies ; vol. 3 |location=Zagreb | publisher= Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb | page=91 |isbn= |lccn= |oclc=14710495 |ol= |archivedate= | archiveurl= |accessdate= }}</ref> There are several ongoing changes concerning ''koji''. One of them is the spread of the genitive-accusative [[Syncretism (linguistics)|syncretism]] to the masculine inanimate of the pronoun.<ref>{{cite book|last=Browne |first=Wayles| authorlink=Wayles Browne |year=1986 |language= |title=Relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian in comparison with English | trans_title= |url= |series=The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian - English contrastive project, New studies ; vol. 4 |location=Zagreb | publisher=Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb | page=165 |isbn= |lccn= |oclc=14368553 |ol= |archivedate= | archiveurl= |accessdate= }}</ref> The cause lies in the necessity to disambiguate the [[Subject (grammar)|subject]] and the [[Object (grammar)|object]] by [[Grammatical case|morphological]] means. The nominative-accusative syncretism of the form ''koji'' is inadequate, so the genitive form ''kojeg'' is preferred:<ref>{{cite book|last=Kordić |first=Snježana| authorlink=Snježana Kordić |year=1995 |language=Serbo-Croatian |title= Relativna rečenica| trans_title=Relative Clauses |url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/426507.Kordic_Relativna_recenica.pdf |series=Znanstvena biblioteka Hrvatskog filološkog društva ; vol. 25 |location=Zagreb | publisher=Matica hrvatska & Hrvatsko filološko društvo | pages=113–128 |isbn=953-6050-04-8 |oclc=37606491 |lccn=97154457 |ol=2863536W |archivedate=8 July 2012 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/690B8xaDu |accessdate=1 August 2012}}</ref>
:Nominative-accusative syncretism:
:{||-
| ''Auto'' || '''''koji''''' || ''je'' || ''udario'' || ''autobus''
|-
|car:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small> || which:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small> || be:<small>AUX.3.SG</small> || hit:<small>AP.m.SG</small> || bus:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small>
|}
:Genitive-accusative syncretism:
:{||-
| ''Auto'' || '''''kojeg''''' || ''je'' || ''udario'' || ''autobus''
|-
|car:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small> || which:<small>ACC/GEN.m.SG</small> || be:<small>AUX.3.SG</small> || hit:<small>AP.m.SG</small> || bus:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small>
|-
| colspan=5 | "Car hit by bus"
|}
====Celtic languages====
{{see also|Irish syntax#Relative clauses}}
The [[Celtic languages]] (at least the modern [[Insular Celtic languages]]) distinguish two types of relative clause: direct relative clauses and indirect relative clauses. A direct relative clause is used where the relativized element is the subject or the direct object of its clause (e.g. "the man ''who'' saw me", "the man ''whom'' I saw"), while an indirect relative clause is used where the relativized element is a genitival (e.g. "the man ''whose'' daughter is in the hospital") or is the object of a preposition (e.g. "the man ''to whom'' I gave the book"). Direct relative clauses are formed with a [[relative pronoun]] (unmarked for case) at the beginning; a gap (in terms of syntactic theory, a [[trace (linguistics)|trace]], indicated by (''t)'' in the examples below) is left in the relative clause at the pronoun's expected position.
;Irish
{|
| an || fear || a || chonaic || (''t)'' || mé
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL || saw || || me
|-
| colspan=6 | "the man who saw me"
|}
;Welsh
{|
| y || dyn || a || welais
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL || I saw
|-
| colspan=4 | "the man whom I saw"
|}
The direct relative particle "a" is not used with "mae" ("is") in Welsh; instead the form "sydd" or "sy'" is used:
{|
| y || dyn || sy'n || blewog || iawn
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL + is || hairy || very
|-
| colspan=5 | "the man who is very hairy"
|}
There is also a defective verb "piau" (usually lenited to "biau"), corresponding to "who own(s)":
{|
| y || dyn || piau || castell || anferth
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL + owns || castle || huge
|-
| colspan=5 | "the man who owns a huge castle"
|}
Indirect relative clauses are formed with a [[relativizer]] at the beginning; the relativized element remains ''in situ'' in the relative clause.
;Irish
{|
| an || fear || a || bhfuil || a || iníon || san || ospidéal
|-
| the || man || IND-REL || is || his || daughter || in the || hospital
|-
| colspan=8 | "the man whose daughter is in the hospital"
|}
;Welsh
{|
| y || dyn || y || rhois || y || llyfr || iddo
|-
| the || man || IND-REL || I gave || the || book || to him
|-
| colspan=7 | "the man to whom I gave the book"
|}
Note that although both the Irish relative pronoun and the relativizer are 'a', the relative pronoun triggers lenition of a following consonant, while the relativizer triggers eclipsis (see [[Irish initial mutations]]).
Both direct and indirect relative particles can be used simply for emphasis, often in answer to a question or as a way of disagreeing with a statement. For instance, the Welsh example above, "y dyn a welais" means not only "the man whom I saw", but also "it was the man (and not anyone else) I saw"; and "y dyn y rhois y llyfr iddo" can likewise mean "it was the man (and not anyone else) to whom I gave the book".
===Semitic languages===
====Hebrew====
In [[Biblical Hebrew language|Biblical Hebrew]], relative clauses were headed with the word ''asher'', which could be either a [[relative pronoun]] or a [[relativizer]]. In later times, ''asher'' became interchangeable with the prefix ''she-'' (which is also used as a conjunction, with the sense of English ''that''), and in [[Modern Hebrew language|Modern Hebrew]], this use of ''she-'' is much more common than ''asher'', except in some formal, archaic, or poetic writing. In meaning, the two are interchangeable; they are used regardless of whether the clause is modifying a human, regardless of their grammatical case in the relative clause, and regardless of whether the clause is restrictive.
Further, because Hebrew does not generally use its word for ''is'', ''she-'' is used to distinguish adjective phrases used in epithet from adjective phrases used in attribution:
:''Ha-kise l'-yad-kha.'' ("The chair is next to you." - ''lit.'', "The-chair [is] to-hand-your.")
:''Ha-kise '''she-'''l'-yad-kha shavur.'' ("The chair next to you is broken." - ''lit.'', "The-chair '''that'''-[is]-to-hand-your [is] broken.")
(This use of ''she-'' does not occur with simple adjectives, as Hebrew has a different way of making that distinction. For example, ''Ha-kise adom'' means "The chair [is] red," while ''Ha-kis'e ha-adom shavur'' means "The red chair is broken" - literally, "The chair the red [is] broken.")
Since 1994, the official rules of Modern Hebrew (as determined by the [[Academy of the Hebrew Language]]) have stated that relative clauses are to be punctuated in Hebrew the same way as in English (described above). That is, non-restrictive clauses are to be set off with commas, while restrictive clauses are not:
:''Ha-kise, '''she-'''ata yoshev alav, shavur.'' ("The chair, '''which''' you are sitting on, is broken.")
:''Ha-kise '''she-'''ata yoshev alav shavur.'' ("The chair '''that''' you are sitting on is broken.")
Nonetheless, many, perhaps most, speakers of Modern Hebrew still use the pre-1994 rules, which were based on the German rules (described above). Except for the simple adjective-phrase clauses described above, these speakers set off all relative clauses, restrictive or not, with commas:
:''Ha-kise, '''she-'''ata yoshev alav, shavur.'' ("The chair '''that''' you are sitting on is broken," ''or'' "The chair, '''which''' you are sitting on, is broken.")
One major difference between relative clauses in Hebrew and those in (for example) English is that in Hebrew, what might be called the "regular" pronoun is not always suppressed in the relative clause. To reuse the prior example:
:''Ha-kise, '''she-'''ata yoshev '''alav''', shavur.'' (''lit.'', "The chair, '''which''' you are sitting '''on it''', [is] broken.")
More specifically, if this pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, it is always suppressed. If it is the direct object, then it is usually suppressed, though it is also correct to leave it in. (If it is suppressed, then the special preposition ''et'', used to mark the direct object, is suppressed as well.) If it is the object of a preposition, it must be left in, because in Hebrew - unlike in English - a preposition cannot appear without its object. When the pronoun is left in, ''she-'' might more properly be called a [[relativizer]] than a relative pronoun.
The [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] [[relativizer]] ''she-'' ‘that’ "might be a shortened form of the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] [[relativizer]] ''‘asher'' ‘that’, which is related to [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] ''‘ashru'' ‘place’ (cf. Semitic *''‘athar'') Alternatively, [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] ''‘asher'' derived from ''she-'', or it was a convergence of Proto-Semitic ''dhu'' (cf. Aramaic ''dī'') and ''‘asher'' [...] Whereas [[Israeli Hebrew|Israeli]] ''she-'' functions both as [[complementizer]] and [[relativizer]], ''ashér'' can only function as a [[relativizer]]."<ref>A quote from p. 79 of [[Ghil'ad Zuckermann|Zuckermann, Ghil'ad]] (2006), "Complement Clause Types in Israeli", ''Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology'', edited by [[R. M. W. Dixon]] and [[Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald]], [[Oxford]]: [[Oxford University Press]], pp. 72-92 (Chapter 3).</ref>
====Arabic====
=====Literary Arabic=====
In [[Modern Standard Arabic|Modern Standard]] and [[Classical Arabic]] there is a relative pronoun (in Arabic: {{lang|ar|الاسم الموصول}} {{transl|ar|DIN|''al-ism al-mawṣūl''}}) ''allaḏī'' (masculine singular), feminine singular ''allatī'', masculine plural ''allaḏīna'', feminine plural ''allawātī'', masculine dual ''allaḏānī'' (nominative) / ''allaḏayni'' (accusative and genitive), feminine dual ''allatānī'' (nom.) / ''allataynī'' (acc. and gen.).
Its usage has two specific rules: it agrees with the antecedent in gender, number and case, and it is used only if the antecedent is definite. If the antecedent is indefinite, no relative pronoun is used. The former is called ''jumlat sila'' (conjunctive sentence) while the latter is called ''jumlat sifa'' (descriptive sentence).
*{{lang|ar|الولد الذي رأيته في الصف أمس غائب اليوم }}
:''al-waladu (a)lladhi ra’aytuhu fī (a)ṣ-ṣaffi ’amsi ġā’ibun al-yawma''
:"The boy I saw in class yesterday is missing today". (relative pronoun present)
*{{lang|ar|هذا ولد رأيته في الصف أمس}}
:''hāḏā waladun ra’aytu-hu fī (a)ṣ-ṣaffi ’amsi''
:"This is a boy I saw in class yesterday". (relative pronoun absent)
=====Colloquial Arabic=====
In Colloquial Arabic the multiple forms of the relative pronoun have been levelled in favour of a single form, a simple conjunction, which in most dialects is ''illi'', and is never omitted. So in Palestinian Arabic the above sentences would be:
* ''alwalad illi shuftō fi (a)ssaff embārih ghāyeb alyōm''
* ''hāda walad illi shuftō fi (a)ssaff embārih''
As in Hebrew, the regular pronoun referring to the antecedent is repeated in the relative clause - literally, "the boy whom I saw '''him''' in class..." (the ''-hu'' in ''ra'aituhu'' and the ''-ō'' in ''shuftō''). The rules of suppression in Arabic are identical to those of Hebrew: obligatory suppression in the case that the pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, obligatory retention in the case that the pronoun is the object of a preposition, and at the discretion of the speaker if the pronoun is the direct object. The only difference from Hebrew is that, in the case of the direct object, it is preferable to retain the pronoun rather than suppress it.
===Japonic languages===
====Japanese====
Japanese does not employ relative pronouns to relate relative clauses to their antecedents. Instead, the relative clause directly modifies the noun phrase as an [[attributive verb]], occupying the same syntactic space as an attributive adjective (before the noun phrase).
:この おいしい 天ぷら
:''kono oishii tempura''
:"this delicious [[tempura]]"
:姉が 作った 天ぷら
:''ane-ga tsukutta tempura''
:''sister-SUBJ make-PAST tempura''
:"the tempura [that] my sister made"
:天ぷらを 食べた 人
:''tempura-o tabeta hito''
:''tempura-OBJ eat-PAST person''
:"the person who ate the tempura"
In fact, since so-called ''i-adjectives'' in Japanese are technically intransitive stative verbs, it can be argued that the structure of the first example (with an adjective) is the same as the others. A number of "adjectival" meanings, in Japanese, are customarily shown with relative clauses consisting solely of a verb or a verb complex:
:光っている ビル
:''hikatte-iru biru''
:''lit-be building''
:"an illuminated building"
:濡れている 犬
:''nurete-iru inu''
:''be_wet-be dog''
:"a wet dog"
Often confusing to speakers of languages which use relative pronouns are relative clauses which would in their own languages require a preposition with the pronoun to indicate the semantic relationship among the constituent parts of the phrase.
:紅茶を 淹れる ために お湯を 沸かした やかん
:''kōcha-o ireru tame ni oyu-o wakashita yakan''
:''tea-OBJ make purpose for hot-water-OBJ boiled kettle''
:"the kettle I boiled water '''in''' for tea"
Here, the preposition "in" is missing from the Japanese ("missing" in the sense that the corresponding postposition would be used with the main clause verb in Japanese) Common sense indicates what the meaning is in this case, but the "missing preposition" can sometimes create ambiguity.
:天ぷらを 作った 人
:''tempura-o tsukutta hito''
:''tempura-OBJ made person''
:(1) "the person who made the tempura"
:(2) "the person [someone] made the tempura '''for'''"
In this case, (1) is the context-free interpretation of choice, but (2) is possible with the proper context.
:僕が 記事を 書いた レストラン
:''boku-ga kiji-o kaita resutoran''
:''I-SUBJ article-OBJ wrote restaurant''
:(1) "a restaurant '''about which''' I wrote an article"
:(2) "a restaurant '''in which''' I wrote an article"
Without more context, both (1) and (2) are equally viable interpretations of the Japanese.
'''Note:''' Spaces are not ordinarily used in Japanese, but they are supplemented here to facilitate parsing by non-speakers of the language.
===Caucasian languages===
====Georgian====
In [[Georgian language|Georgian]], there are two strategies for forming relative clauses. The first is similar to that of English or Latin: the modified noun is followed by a relativizer that inflects for its embedded case and may take a postposition. The relativized noun may be preceded by a determiner.
:{|
| (ის) || კაცი, || რომელიც || პარკში || წავიდა, || გაზეთს || კითხულობს
|-
| ''(is)'' || ''ḳac-i,'' || ''romel-i-c'' || ''ṗarḳ=ši'' || ''c̣avida,'' || ''gazet-s'' || ''ḳitxulobs''
|-
| (that.NOM) || man-NOM || which-NOM-REL || park=to || he.went || newspaper-DAT || he.reads.it
|-
| colspan=7 | "the man who went to the park is reading the newspaper"
|}
:{|
| (ის) || ქალი, || რომელსაც || წერილს || დავუწერ, || თბილისში || ცხოვრობს
|-
| ''(is)'' || ''kal-i,'' || ''romel-sa-c'' || ''c̣eril-s'' || ''davuc̣er,'' || ''tbilis=ši'' || ''cxovrobs''
|-
| (that.NOM) || woman-NOM || which-DAT-REL || letter-DAT || I.will.write.it.to.her || Tbilisi-in || she.lives
|-
| colspan=7 | "the woman who I will write a letter to lives in [[Tbilisi]]"
|}
:{|
| ნინომ || (ის) || სკამი, || რომელზეც || ვზივარ, || იყიდა
|-
| ''Nino-m'' || ''(is)'' || ''sḳam-i,'' || romel=ze-c || vzivar, || ''iqida''
|-
| Nino-ERG || (that.NOM) || chair-NOM || which=on-REL || I.sit || she.bought.it
|-
| colspan=6 | "Nino bought the chair I am sitting in"
|}
A second, more colloquial, strategy is marked by the invariant particle რომ ''rom''. This particle is generally the second word of the clause, and since it does not decline, is often followed by the appropriately cased third-person pronoun to show the relativized noun's role in the embedded clause. A determiner precedes the relativized noun, which is also usually preceded by the clause as a whole.
:{|
| წერილს || რომ || მას || დავუწერ, || ის || ქალი || თბილისში || ცხოვრობს
|-
| ''c̣̣eril-s'' || ''rom'' || ''mas'' || ''davuc̣̣er,'' || ''is'' || ''kal-i'' || ''tbilis=ši'' || ''cxovrobs''
|-
| letter-DAT || REL || 3S.DAT || I.will.write.it.to.her || that.NOM || woman-NOM || Tbilisi-in || she.lives
|-
| colspan=8 | "the woman who I will write a letter to lives in [[Tbilisi]]"
|}
:{|
| მე || რომ || მასზე || ვზივარ, || ის || სკამი || ნინომ || იყიდა
|-
| ''me'' || ''rom'' || ''mas=ze'' || ''vzivar,'' || ''is'' || ''sḳam-i'' || ''Nino-m'' || ''iqida''
|-
| 1S || REL || 3S.DAT=on || I.sit || that.NOM || chair-NOM || Nino-ERG || she.bought.it
|-
| colspan=8 | "Nino bought the chair I am sitting in"
|}
Such relative clauses may be internally headed. In such cases, the modified noun moves into the clause, taking the appropriate declension for the its role therein (thus eliminating the need for the third person pronouns in the above examples), and leaves behind the determiner (which now functions as a pronoun) in the matrix clause.
:{|
| ქალს || რომ || წერილს || დავუწერ, || ის || თბილისში || ცხოვრობს
|-
| ''kal-s'' || ''rom'' || ''c̣̣eril-s'' || ''davuc̣̣er,'' || ''is'' || ''tbilis=ši'' || ''cxovrobs''
|-
| woman-DAT || REL || letter-DAT || I.will.write.it.to.her || 3S.NOM || Tbilisi-in || she.lives
|-
| colspan=7 | "the woman who I will write a letter to lives in [[Tbilisi]]"
|}
===Austronesian languages===
====Tagalog====
[[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] uses the [[Relative clause#Gapped relative clause|gapping strategy]] to form relative clauses, with the [[complementizer|complementiser]], ''na'' / ''=ng'' 'that', separating the head, which is the noun being modified, from the actual relative clause. In (1a) below, ''lalaki'' 'man' serves as the head, while ''nagbigay ng bigas sa bata'' 'gave rice to the child' is the relative clause.
:{|
| (1) || a. || '''lalaki''' || =ng || nagbigay || ____ || ng || bigas || sa || bata
|-
| || || man || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|act}}.gave || || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=8 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|-
|-
| || b. || Nagbigay || ''ang'' || ''lalaki'' || ng || bigas || sa || bata.
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|nom}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=8 | "The man gave rice to the child."
|}
The gap inside the relative clause corresponds to the position that the noun acting as the head would have normally taken, had it been in a [[Sentence (linguistics)#By purpose|declarative sentence]]. In (1a), the gap is in subject position within the relative clause. This corresponds to the subject position occupied by ''ang lalaki'' 'the man' in the declarative sentence in (1b).
There is a constraint in Tagalog on the position from which a noun can be relativised and in which a gap can appear: A noun has to be the subject within the relative clause in order for it to be relativised. The phrases in (2) are ungrammatical because the nouns that have been relativised are not the subjects of their respective relative clauses. In (2a), the gap is in direct object position, while in (2b), the gap is in indirect object position.
:{|
| (2) || a. || * || '''bigas''' || na || nagbigay || ang || lalaki || ____ || sa || bata
|-
| || || || rice || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|nom}} || man || || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || || colspan=8 | for: "rice that the man gave to the child"
|-
|-
| || b. || * || '''bata''' || =ng || nagbigay || ang || lalaki || ng || bigas || ____
|-
| || || || child || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|nom}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice ||
|-
| || || || colspan=8 | for: "child that the man gave rice to"
|}
The correct Tagalog translations for the intended meanings in (2) are found in (3), where the verbs have been passivised in order to raise the logical direct object in (3a) and the logical indirect object in (3b) to subject position. (Tagalog can have more than one [[Tagalog grammar#Trigger .28voice .2F focus.29|passive voice]] form for any given verb.)
:{|
| (3) || a. || '''bigas''' || na || ibinigay || ng || lalaki || sa || bata
|-
| || || rice || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|psv}}.gave || {{sc|gen}} || man || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "rice that the man gave to the child"
|-
| || || colspan=7 | (or: "rice that was given to the child by the man")
|-
| || b. || '''bata''' || =ng || binigyan || ng || lalaki || ng || bigas
|-
| || || child || {{sc|comp}} || gave.{{sc|psv}} || {{sc|gen}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "child that the man gave rice to"
|-
| || || colspan=7 | (or: "child that was given rice to by the man")
|}
Tagalog relative clauses can be left-headed, as in (1a) and (3), right-headed, as in (4), or internally headed, as in (5).
:{|
| (4) || nagbigay || ng || bigas || sa || bata || na || '''lalaki'''
|-
| || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child || {{sc|comp}} || man
|-
| || colspan=7 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|}
:{|
| (5) || a. || nagbigay || na || '''lalaki''' || ng || bigas || sa || bata
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|comp}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|-
|-
| || b. || nagbigay || ng || bigas || na || '''lalaki''' || sa || bata
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|comp}} || man || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|}
In (4), the head, ''lalaki'' 'man', is found after or to the right of the relative clause, ''nagbigay ng bigas sa bata'' 'gave rice to the child'. In (5), the head is found in some position inside the relative clause. Note that when the head appears to the right of or internally to the relative clause, the complementiser appears to the left of the head. When the head surfaces to the left of the relative clause, the complementiser surfaces to the right of the head.
There are exceptions to the subjects-only constraint to relativisation mentioned above. The first involves relativising the [[Possession (linguistics)|possessor]] of a noun phrase within the relative clause.
:{|
| (6) || '''bata''' || =ng || nasugatan || ang || daliri || ____
|-
| || child || {{sc|comp}} || injured.{{sc|psv}} || {{sc|nom}} || finger ||
|-
| || colspan=6 | "child whose finger was injured"
|}
In (6), the head, ''bata'' 'child', is the owner of the injured finger. Note that ''ang daliri'' 'the finger' is the subject of the verb, ''nasugatan'' 'was injured'.
Another exception involves relativising the [[Oblique case|oblique]] noun phrase.
:{|
| (7) || a. || '''ospital''' || (na) || kung || saan || ipinanganak || si || Juan
|-
| || || hospital || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|q-comp}} || where || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "hospital where Juan was born"
|-
|-
| || b. || Nagtanong || siya || kung || saan || ipinanganak || si || Juan.
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.asked || {{sc|3sg.nom}} || {{sc|q-comp}} || where || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "She asked where Juan was born."
|-
|-
| || c. || Ipinanganak || si || Juan || ''sa'' || ''ospital''.
|-
| || || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan || {{sc|loc}} || hospital
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "Juan was born at the hospital."
|-
|-
| || d. || Saan || ipinanganak || si || Juan?
|-
| || || where || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "Where was Juan born?"
|}
When an oblique noun phrase is relativised, as in (7a), ''na'' 'that', the complementiser that separates the head from the relative clause, is optional. The relative clause itself is also composed differently. In the examples in (1a), and in (3) to (6), the relative clauses are simple declaratives that contain a gap. However, the relative clause in (7a) looks more like an [[Indirect speech|indirect]] [[Sentence (linguistics)#By purpose|question]], complete with the [[Sentence (linguistics)#By purpose|interrogative]] complementiser, ''kung'' 'if', and a pre-verbally positioned [[Interrogative word|WH-word]] like ''saan'' 'where', as in (7b). The sentence in (7c) is the declarative version of the relative clause in (7a), illustrating where the head, ''ospital'' 'hospital', would have been "before" relativisation. The question in (7d) shows the direct question version of the [[Dependent clause|subordinate]] indirect question in (7b).
====Hawaiian====
Relative clauses in [[Hawaiian language|Hawaiian]]<ref>Alexander, W. D., ''Introduction to Hawaiian Grammar'', Dover, 2004 (originally 1864): 45-47.</ref> are avoided unless they are short.
If in English a relative clause would have a copula and an adjective, in Hawaiian the antecedent is simply modified by the adjective: "The honest man" instead of "the man who is honest". If the English relative clause would have a copula and a noun, in Hawaiian an appositive is used instead: "Paul, an apostle" instead of "Paul, who was an apostle".
If the English relative pronoun would be the subject of an intransitive or passive verb, in Hawaiian a participle is used instead of a full relative clause: "the people fallen" instead of "the people who fell"; "the thing given" instead of "the thing that was given". But when the relative clause's antecedent is a person, the English relative pronoun would be the subject of the relative clause, and the relative clause's verb is active and transitive, a relative clause is used and it begins with the relative pronoun ''nana'': ''The one who me (past) sent'' = "the one who sent me".
If in English a relative pronoun would be the object of a relative clause, in Hawaiian the possessive form is used so as to treat the antecedent as something possessed: ''the things of me to have seen'' = "the things that I saw"; ''Here is theirs to have seen'' = This is what they saw".
===Andean languages===
====Aymara====
{|
| thuquñap || punchu
|-
| dance-INF-3POSS || poncho
|-
| colspan=6 | "the poncho he is dancing with"
|}
===Chinese languages===
====Mandarin====
{{further|Chinese grammar}}
In [[Mandarin language|Mandarin Chinese]], the relative clause is similar to other adjectival phrases in that it precedes the noun that it modifies, and ends with the relative particle ''de''. If the relative clause is missing a subject but contains an object (in other words, if the verb is transitive), the main-clause noun is the implied subject of the relative clause:<ref>The examples in this section are from Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A., ''Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar'', Univ. of California Press, 1981: 579-585.</ref>
:种水果的农人
:''zhòng shuǐguǒ de nóngrén''
: grow fruit (particle) farmer
: "the fruit-growing farmer" or "the farmer who grows fruit"
If the object but not the subject is missing from the relative clause, the main-clause noun is the implied object of the relative clause:
:他们种的水果
:''tāmen zhòng de shuǐguǒ''
: they grow (particle) fruit
: "the by-them-grown fruit" or "the fruit that they grow"
If both the subject and the object are missing from the relative clause, then the main-clause noun could either be the implied subject or the implied object of the relative clause; sometimes which is intended is clear from the context, especially when the subject or object of the verb must be human and the other must be non-human:
:今天赢的钱付房租
:''jīntiān yíng de qián fù fáng zū''
: today win (particle) money pay house rent
: "the won-today money pays the rent" or "the money that [we] won today pays the rent"
But sometimes ambiguity arises when it is not clear from the context whether the main-clause noun is intended as the subject or the object of the relative clause:
:昨天批评的人都不在这里
:''zuótiān pīping de rén dōu bu zài zhèlǐ''
:yesterday criticize (particle) person all not at here
:"the people who criticized [others] yesterday are all not here" or "the people whom [others] criticized yesterday are all not here"
However, the first meaning (in which the main-clause noun is the subject) is usually intended, as the second can be unambiguously stated using a passive voice marker:
:昨天被批评的人都不在这里
:''zuótiān bèi pīping de rén dōu bu zài zhèlǐ''
:yesterday (passive marker) criticize (particle) person all not at here
:"the people who were criticized yesterday are all not here"
Sometimes a relative clause has both a subject and an object specified, in which case the main-clause noun is the implied object of an implied preposition in the relative clause:
:我写信的毛笔
:''wŏ xiě xìn de máobǐ''
:I write letter (particle) brushpen
:the brushpen that I write letters with
It is also possible to include the preposition explicitly in the relative clause, but in that case it takes a pronoun object (a [[personal pronoun]] with the function of a relative pronoun):<ref>This example is from Chaofen Sun, ''Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction'', Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 189.</ref>
:我替他画画的人
:''wŏ tì tā huà huà de rén''
:I for him/her draw picture (particle) person
:"the person for whom I drew the picture"
Free relative clauses are formed in the same way, omitting the modified noun after the particle ''de''. As with bound relative clauses, ambiguity may arise; for example, 吃的 ''chī de'' "eat (particle)" may mean "that which is eaten", i.e. "food", or "those who eat".<ref>Sun (2006), p. 187.</ref>
===Creoles===
====Hawaiian Creole English====
In [[Hawaiian Creole English]], an English-based [[creole language|creole]] also called Hawaiian Pidgin or simply Pidgin, relative clauses work in a way that is similar to, but not identical to, the way they work in English.<ref>Sakoda, Kent, and Siegel, Jeff. ''Pidgin Grammar'', Bess Press, 2003: pp. 102ff.</ref> As in English, a relative pronoun that serves as the object of the verb in the relative clause can optionally be omitted: For example,
:''Ai neva si da buk daet Lisa wen bai''
:I never see the book that Lisa (past) buy
:I didn't see the book that Lisa bought
can also be expressed with the relative pronoun omitted, as
:''Ai neva si da buk Lisa wen bai''
:I never see the book Lisa (past) buy
:I didn't see the book Lisa bought
However, relative pronouns serving as the subject of a relative clause show more flexibility than in English; they can be included, as is mandatory in English, they can be omitted, or they can be replaced by another pronoun. For example, all of the following can occur and all mean the same thing:
:''Get wan nada grl hu no kaen ste stil''
:There's one other girl who no can stay still
:There's another girl who cannot stay still
:''Get wan nada grl no kaen ste stil''
:There's one other girl no can stay still
:''Get wan nada grl shi no kaen ste stil''
:There's one other girl she no can stay still
====Gullah====
In [[Gullah language|Gullah]], an English-based creole spoken along the southeastern coast of the United States, no relative pronoun is normally used for the subject of a relative clause. For example:
:''Duh him cry out so''
:It him cry out so
:It's he who cries out so
:''Enty duh dem shum dey?''
:Ain't it them saw_him there?
:Isn't it they who saw him there?
==See also==
*[[Long-distance dependencies]]
*[[Reduced relative clause]]
==References==
<references/>
*[[Rodney Huddleston]] and [[Geoffrey Pullum|Geoffrey K. Pullum]] (2002). ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language''. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43146-8.
*A.J.Thomson & A.V.Martinet (4th edition 1986). ''A Practical English Grammar''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-431342-5. §72-85. (For the basic "rules" of the English relative pronoun in a presentation suitable for foreign learners.)
* Keenan & Comrie, "Data on the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy", [[Language (journal)|Language]], vol. 55, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 333–351 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/412588]
==External links==
*[http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsARelativeClause.htm SIL Glossary of linguistic terms - What is a relative clause?]
*[http://writingforresults.net/Acro_3/4_msg/4_grammr/relative.pdf Relative Clause: Does it specify which one? Or does it just describe the one and only?]
*[http://www.englishgrammar.org/relative-clauses-2/ ''Using relative clauses''], by Jennifer Frost
{{DEFAULTSORT:Relative Clause}}
[[Category:Linguistic typology]]
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Syntactic entities]]' |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | '{{hatnote|For details about relative clauses in English, see [[English relative clauses]].}}
A '''relative clause''' is a kind of [[subordinate clause]] that contains an element whose interpretation is provided by an [[antecedent (grammar)|antecedent]] on which the subordinate clause is grammatically [[dependent (grammar)|dependent]]; that is, there is an [[anaphora (linguistics)|anaphoric]] relation between the relativized element in the relative clause, and the antecedent on which it depends.<ref name="HP183">Rodney D. Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, ''A Student's Introduction to English Grammar'', CUP 2005, p. 183ff.</ref>
Typically, a relative clause modifies a [[noun]] or [[noun phrase]],<ref name="HP183" /> and uses some grammatical device to indicate that one of the arguments within the relative clause has the same referent as that noun or noun phrase. For example, in the sentence ''I met a man who wasn't there'', the subordinate clause ''who wasn't there'' is a relative clause, since it modifies the noun ''man'', and uses the pronoun ''who'' to indicate that the same "man" is referred to within the subordinate clause (in this case, as its [[subject (grammar)|subject]]).
In many European languages, relative clauses are introduced by a special class of [[pronoun]]s called ''[[relative pronoun]]s'';<ref>{{cite book|last= Kurzová |first= Helena | authorlink= |year=1981 |language=German |title=Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen | trans_title=Relative Clauses in the Indo-European Languages |series= |location=Hamburg |publisher= Buske |page=117 |isbn= 3-87118-458-6 |oclc=63317519 |ol=}}</ref> such as ''who'' in the example just given. In other languages, relative clauses may be marked in different ways: they may be introduced by a special class of conjunctions called ''[[relativizer]]s''; the main verb of the relative clause may appear in a special morphological variant; or a relative clause may be indicated by word order alone.<ref>{{cite book|last= Lehmann |first= Christian | authorlink= |year=1984 |language=German |title= Der Relativsatz | trans_title=Relative Clauses |series=Language universals series ; vol. 3 |location=Tübingen |publisher=G. Narr |page=438 |isbn=3-87808-982-1 |oclc=14358164 |ol=}}</ref> In some languages, more than one of these mechanisms may be possible.
==Types of relative clause==
===Bound and free===
A ''bound'' relative clause, the type most often considered, qualifies an explicit element (usually a [[noun]] or [[noun phrase]]) appearing in the main clause, and refers back to that element by means of some explicit or implicit device within the relative clause.
The relative clause may also be called the ''embedded clause''; the main (or higher-level) clause in which it is embedded is also called the ''matrix clause''. The noun in the main clause that the relative clause modifies is called the ''[[Head (grammar)|head]] noun'', or (particularly when referred back to by a relative pronoun) the ''[[antecedent (grammar)|antecedent]]''.
For example, in the English sentence "The man whom I saw yesterday went home", the relative clause "whom I saw yesterday" modifies the head noun ''man'', and the relative pronoun ''whom'' refers back to the referent of that noun. The sentence is equivalent to the following two sentences: "I saw a man yesterday. The man went home." Note that the shared argument need not fulfill the same role in both clauses; in this example the same man is referred to by the [[subject (grammar)|subject]] of the matrix clause, but the [[direct object]] of the relative clause.
A '''free relative clause''', on the other hand, does not have an explicit antecedent external to itself. Instead, the relative clause itself takes the place of an argument in the matrix clause. For example, in the English sentence "I like what I see", the clause ''what I see'' is a free relative clause, because it has no antecedent, but itself serves as the [[object (grammar)|object]] of the verb ''like'' in the main clause. (An alternative analysis is that the free relative clause has [[zero (linguistics)|zero]] as its antecedent.)
===Restrictive and non-restrictive===
Bound relative clauses may or may not be [[restrictive]]. A '''restrictive''', or '''defining''', relative clause modifies the meaning of its head word (restricts its possible referent), whereas a non-restrictive (''non-defining'') relative clause merely provides supplementary information. For example:
*''The man '''who lives in this house''' has not been seen for days.'' This (''who lives in this house'') is a restrictive relative clause, modifying the meaning of ''man'', and essential to the sentence (if the clause were omitted, it would no longer be known which man is being referred to).
*''The mayor, '''who lives in this house''', has not been seen for days.'' This is a non-restrictive relative clause, since it provides supplementary information about the mayor, but is not essential to the sentence – if the clause were omitted, it would still be known which mayor is meant.
In speaking it is natural to make slight pauses around non-restrictive clauses, and in English this is shown in writing by [[comma]]s (as in the examples). However many languages do not distinguish the two types of relative clause in this way. Another difference in English is that only restrictive relative clauses may be introduced with ''that'' or use the "zero" relative pronoun (see [[English relative clauses]] for details).
A non-restrictive relative clause may have a whole sentence as its antecedent rather than a specific noun phrase; for example:
*''The cat was allowed on the bed, '''which annoyed the dog'''.''
Here, ''which'' refers back (presumably) not to the bed or the cat, but to the entire [[proposition]] expressed in the main clause, namely the circumstance that the cat was allowed on the bed.
===Finite and non-finite===
Relative clauses may be either finite clauses (as in the examples above) or [[non-finite clause]]s. An example of a non-finite relative clause in English is the [[infinitive clause]] ''on whom to rely'', in the sentence "She is the person on whom to rely".
==Ways of forming relative clauses==
Languages differ in many ways in how relative clauses are expressed:
#How the role of the shared noun phrase is indicated in the embedded clause.
#How the two clauses are joined together.
#Where the embedded clause is placed relative to the head noun (in the process indicating which noun phrase in the main clause is modified).
For example, the English sentence "The man that I saw yesterday went home" can be described as follows:
#The role of the shared noun in the embedded clause is indicated by ''gapping'' (i.e. in the embedded clause "that I saw <u> </u> yesterday", a gap is left after "saw" to indicate where the shared noun would go).
#The clauses are joined by the ''complementizer'' "that".
#The embedded clause is placed ''after'' the head noun "the man".
The following sentences indicate various possibilities (only some of which are grammatical in English):
*"The man [that I saw yesterday] went home". (A ''complementizer'' linking the two clauses with a ''gapping'' strategy indicating the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause. One possibility in English. Very common cross-linguistically.)
*"The man [I saw yesterday] went home". (Gapping strategy, with no word joining the clauses—also known as a [[reduced relative clause]]. One possibility in English. Used in [[Arabic language|Arabic]] when the head noun is [[definiteness|indefinite]], as in "a man" instead of "the man".)
*"The man [whom I saw yesterday] went home". (A [[relative pronoun]] indicating the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause — in this case, the direct object. Used in formal English, as in [[Latin]], [[German language|German]] or [[Russian language|Russian]].)
*"The man [seen by me yesterday] went home". (A [[reduced relative clause]], in this case [[passive voice|passivized]]. One possibility in English.)
*"The man [that I saw him yesterday] went home". (A complementizer linking the two sentences with a [[resumptive pronoun]] indicating the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause, as in [[Arabic language|Arabic]], [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Persian language|Persian]].)
*"The man [that him I saw yesterday] went home". (Similar to the previous, but with the resumptive pronoun fronted. This occurs in modern [[Greek language|Greek]] and as one possibility in modern [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]; the combination ''that him'' of complementizer and resumptive pronoun behaves similar to a unitary relative pronoun.)
*"The [I saw yesterday]'s man went home". (Preceding relative clause with gapping and use of a possessive particle — as normally used in a [[genitive construction]] — to link the relative clause to the head noun. This occurs in many Sino-Tibetan languages and possibly developed from "relative clause + noun" > "nominalized clause + noun" > "genitive construction".<ref>http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2008_4_03_2641.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2008_4_05_5653.pdf</ref> )
*"The [I saw yesterday] man went home". (Preceding relative clause with gapping and no linking word, as in [[Japanese language|Japanese]].)
*"The man [of my seeing yesterday] went home". ([[Nominalization|Nominalized]] relative clause, as in [[Turkish language|Turkish]].)
*"[Which man I saw yesterday], that man went home". (A ''correlative'' structure, as in [[Hindi]].)
*"[I saw the man yesterday] went home." (An ''unreduced, internally headed'' relative clause, as in [[Standard Tibetan|Tibetan]] or [[Navajo language|Navajo]].)
===Strategies for indicating the role of the shared noun in the relative clause===
There are four main strategies for indicating the role of the shared noun phrase in the embedded clause. These are typically listed in order of the degree to which the noun in the relative clause has been reduced, from most to least:
# Gap strategy or gapped relative clause
# Relative pronoun
# Pronoun retention
# Nonreduction
====Gapped relative clause====
In this strategy, there is simply a gap in the relative clause where the shared noun would go. This is normal in English, for example, and also in Chinese and Japanese. This is the most common type of relative clause, especially in [[subject–object–verb|verb-final]] languages with prenominal relative clauses, but is also widespread among languages with postnominal externally headed relative clauses.
There may or may not be any marker used to join the relative and main clauses. (Note that languages with a case-marked relative pronoun are technically not considered to employ the gapping strategy even though they do in fact have a gap, since the case of the relative pronoun indicates the role of the shared noun.) Often the form of the verb is different from that in main clauses and is to some degree nominalized, as in Turkish and in English [[reduced relative clause]]s.<ref>{{cite book | last=Carrol | first=David W | edition=5 | title=Psychology of Language | publisher=Thomson & Wadsworth | location=Belmont | year=2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last=Townsend | first=David J |author2=Thomas G Bever | title=Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules | year=2001 | publisher=MIT Press | location=Cambridge | pages=247–9}}</ref>
In non-verb-final languages, apart from languages like [[Thai language|Thai]] and [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]] with very strong politeness distinctions in their grammars{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}}, gapped relative clauses tend however to be restricted to positions high up in the accessibility hierarchy. With obliques and genitives, non-verb-final languages that do not have politeness restrictions on pronoun use tend to use pronoun retention. English is unusual in that ''all'' roles in the embedded clause can be indicated by gapping: e.g. "I saw the man who is my friend", but also (in progressively less accessible positions cross-linguistically, according to the ''[[accessibility hierarchy]]'' described below) "... who I know", "... who I gave a book to", "... who I spoke with", "... who I run slower than". Usually, languages with gapping disallow it beyond a certain level in the accessibility hierarchy, and switch to a different strategy at this point. [[Classical Arabic]], for example, only allows gapping in the subject and sometimes the direct object; beyond that, a resumptive pronoun must be used. Some languages have no allowed strategies at all past a certain point — e.g. in many [[Austronesian languages]], such as [[Tagalog]], all relative clauses must have the shared noun serving the subject role in the embedded clause. In these languages, relative clauses with shared nouns serving "disallowed" roles can be expressed by [[passive voice|passivizing]] the embedded sentence, thereby moving the noun in the embedded sentence into the subject position. This, for example, would transform "The man who I gave a book to" into "The man who was given a book by me". Generally, languages such as this "conspire" to implement general relativization by allowing passivization from ''all'' positions – hence a sentence equivalent to "The man who is run slower than by me" is grammatical. Note also that gapping is often used in conjunction with case-marked relative pronouns (since the relative pronoun indicates the case role in the embedded clause), but this is not necessary (e.g. Chinese and Japanese both using gapping in conjunction with an indeclinable complementizer).
====Relative pronoun type====
This is in fact a type of gapped relative clause, but is distinguished by the fact that the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause is indicated indirectly by the case marking of the marker (the [[relative pronoun]]) used to join the main and embedded clauses. All languages which use relative pronouns have them in clause-initial position: though one could conceivably imagine a clause-final relative pronoun analogous to an adverbial subordinator in that position, they are unknown.
Note that some languages have what are described as "relative pronouns" (in that they agree with some properties of the head noun, such as number and gender) but which don't actually indicate the case role of the shared noun in the embedded clause. [[Classical Arabic]] in fact has "relative pronouns" which are case-marked, but which agree in case with the ''head'' noun. Case-marked relative pronouns in the strict sense are almost entirely confined to European languages{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, where they are widespread except among the [[Celtic languages|Celtic family]] and [[Indo-Aryan languages|Indo-Aryan family]]. The influence of Spanish has led to their adaption by a very small number of [[indigenous languages of the Americas|Native American languages]], of which the best-known are the [[Keresan languages]].<ref>[http://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_aco WALS - Acoma]</ref>
====Pronoun retention type====
In this type, the position relativized is indicated by means of a [[personal pronoun]] in the same syntactic position as would ordinarily be occupied by a noun phrase of that type in the main clause — known as a ''[[resumptive pronoun]]''. It is equivalent to saying "The man who I saw <u>him</u> yesterday went home". Pronoun retention is very frequently used for relativization of inaccessible positions on the accessibility hierarchy. In [[Persian language|Persian]] and [[Classical Arabic]], for example, resumptive pronouns are required when the embedded role is other than the subject or direct object, and optional in the case of the direct object. Resumptive pronouns are common in non-verb-final [[languages of Africa]] and Asia, and also used by the Celtic languages of northwest Europe and [[Romanian language|Romanian]] ("Omul pe care <u>l</u>-am văzut ieri a mers acasă"/"The man who I saw <u>him</u> yesterday went home"). They also occur in deeply embedded positions in English, as in "That's the girl that I don't know what <u>she</u> did",<ref name="mckee">{{citation|title=Resumptive Pronouns in English Relative Clauses|first1=Cecile|last1=McKee|first2=Dana|last2=McDaniel|journal=Language Acquisition|volume=9|number=2|year=2001|pages=113–156|doi=10.1207/s15327817la0902_01}}.</ref> although this is sometimes considered non-standard.
Only a very small number of languages, of which the best known is [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]], have pronoun retention as their sole grammatical type of relative clause.
====Nonreduction type====
In the nonreduction type, unlike the other three, the shared noun occurs as a ''full-fledged noun phrase'' in the embedded clause, which has the form of a full independent clause. Typically, it is the head noun in the main clause that is reduced or missing. Some languages use relative clauses of this type with the normal strategy of embedding the relative clause next to the head noun. These languages are said to have ''internally headed'' relative clauses, which would be similar to the (ungrammatical) English structure "[You see the girl over there] is my friend" or "I took [you see the girl over there] out on a date". This is used, for example, in [[Navajo language|Navajo]], which uses a special relative verb (as with some other Native American languages).
A second strategy is the ''correlative''-clause strategy used by [[Hindi]] and other [[Indo-Aryan languages]], as well as [[Bambara language|Bambara]]. This strategy is equivalent to saying "Which girl you see over there, she is my daughter" or "Which knife I killed my friend with, the police found that knife". It is "correlative" because of the corresponding "which ... that ..." demonstratives or "which ... she/he/it ..." pronouns, which indicate the respective nouns being equated. Note that the shared noun can either be repeated entirely in the main clause or reduced to a pronoun. Note also that there is no need to front the shared noun in such a sentence. For example, in the second example above, Hindi would actually say something equivalent "I killed my friend with which knife, the police found that knife".
Dialects of some European languages, such as Italian, do use the nonreduction type in forms that could be glossed in English as "The man just passed us by, he introduced me to the chancellor here."
In general, however, nonreduction is restricted to verb-final languages, though it is more common among those that are [[head-marking language|head-marking]].
===Strategies for joining the relative clause to the main clause===
The following are some of the common strategies for joining the two clauses:
*Use of an indeclinable particle (specifically, a [[relativizer]]) inserted into the sentence, placed next to the modified noun; the embedded clause is likewise inserted into the appropriate position, typically placed on the other side of the complementizer. This strategy is very common and arguably occurs in English with the word ''that'' ("the man that I saw"), though this interpretation of "that" as something other than a relative pronoun is controversial (see [[#English|below]]). In the modern [[varieties of Arabic]] (using ''illi'' placed after the modified noun); in [[Chinese language|Chinese]] (using ''de'' placed before the modified noun); and in [[Japanese language|Japanese]] (using ''no'' placed before the modified noun).
*Use of a [[relative pronoun]]. Prototypically, a relative pronoun agrees with the head noun in gender, number, definiteness, animacy, etc., but adopts the [[grammatical case|case]] that the shared noun assumes in the ''embedded'', not matrix, clause. This is the case in a number of conservative European languages, such as [[Latin]], [[German language|German]] and [[Russian language|Russian]]. Many languages also have similar linking words common termed "relative pronouns" that agree in some way with the head noun, but do not adopt the case role of the embedded clause. In English, for example, the use of ''who'' vs. ''which'' agrees with the animacy of the head noun, but there is no case agreement except in the formal English contrast ''who'' vs. ''whom'' (which is often used incorrectly, if at all, in speech). Similarly, in [[Classical Arabic]], there is a relative pronoun that agrees in number, gender, [[definiteness]] ''and'' case with the head noun (rather than taking the case role of the noun in the embedded clause). Languages with prototypical relative pronouns typically use the gapping strategy for indicating the role in the embedded clause, since the relative pronoun itself indicates the role by its case. ([[Classical Arabic]], where the case marking indicates something else, uses a [[resumptive pronoun]].) Some linguists prefer to use the term ''relative pronoun'' only for the prototypical cases (but in this case it's unclear what to call the non-prototypical cases).
*Directly inserting the embedded clause in the matrix clause at the appropriate position, with no word used to join them. This is common, for example, in English (cf. "The man I saw yesterday went home"), and is used in [[Classical Arabic]] in relative clauses that modify indefinite nouns.
*By [[nominalization|nominalizing]] the relative clause (e.g. converting it to a participial construction). Generally, no relative pronoun or complementizer is used. This occurs, for example, in [[reduced relative clause]]s in English (e.g. "The man seen by me yesterday went home" or "The man planning to go home soon is my friend"). Formal German makes common use of such participial relative clauses, which can become extremely long. This is also the normal strategy in [[Turkish language|Turkish]], which has sentences equivalent to "I ate the potato of Hasan's giving to Sina" (in place of "I ate the potato that Hasan gave to Sina"). Note that this can be viewed as a situation in which the "complementizer" is attached to the verb of the embedded clause (e.g. in English, "-ing" or "-ed" can be viewed as a type of complementizer).
===Position of the head noun with respect to the relative clause===
The positioning of a relative clause before or after a head noun is related to the more general concept of [[Branching (linguistics)|branching]] in linguistics. Languages that place relative clauses after their head noun (so-called ''head-initial'' or ''VO'' languages) generally also have adjectives and [[genitive construction|genitive modifier]]s following the head noun, as well as verbs preceding their objects. [[French language|French]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]] and [[Arabic language|Arabic]] are prototypical languages of this sort. Languages that place relative clauses before their head noun (so-called ''head-final'' or ''OV'' languages) generally also have adjectives and [[genitive construction|genitive modifier]]s preceding the head noun, as well as verbs following their objects. [[Turkish language|Turkish]] and [[Japanese language|Japanese]] are prototypical languages of this sort. Not all languages fit so easily into these categories. English, for example, is generally head-first, but has adjectives preceding their head nouns, and [[genitive construction]]s with both preceding and following modifiers ("the friend of my father" vs. "my father's friend"). [[Chinese language|Chinese]] has the ''VO'' order, with verb preceding object, but otherwise is generally head-final.
Various possibilities for ordering are:
*Relative clause following the head noun, as in English, [[French language|French]] or [[Arabic language|Arabic]].
*Relative clause preceding the head noun, as in [[Turkish language|Turkish]], [[Japanese language|Japanese]], or [[Chinese language|Chinese]].
*Head noun ''within'' the relative clause (an ''internally headed'' relative clause). An example of such a language is [[Navajo language|Navajo]]. These languages are said to have [[#Nonreduction type|nonreduced]] relative clauses. These languages have a structure equivalent to "[I saw the man yesterday] went home".
*Adjoined relative clause. These languages have the relative clause completely outside the main clause, and use a correlative structure to link the two. These languages also have [[#Nonreduction type|nonreduced]] relative clauses. [[Hindi]] is the most well known such language, and have a structure similar to "Which man I saw yesterday, that man went home" or (with non-fronting of the relativized noun in the relative clause) "I saw which man yesterday, that man went home". Another example is [[Warlpiri language|Warlpiri]], which constructs relative clauses of a form similar to "I saw the man yesterday, which he was going home". However, it is sometimes said these languages have no relative clauses at all, since the sentences of this form can equally well translate as "I saw the man who was going home yesterday" or "I saw the man yesterday when/while he was going home".
==Accessibility hierarchy==
The antecedent of the relative clause (that is, the noun that is modified by it) can in theory be the subject of the main clause, or its object, or any other [[verb argument]]. In many languages, however, especially rigidly [[left-branching]], [[dependent-marking language]]s with prenominal relative clauses,<ref>Lehmann, Christian (1986). On the typology of relative clauses. ''Linguistics'', 24(4), 663-680. {{doi|10.1515/ling.1986.24.4.663}}</ref> there are major restrictions on the role the antecedent may have ''in the relative clause''.
[[Edward L. Keenan]] and [[Bernard Comrie]] noted that these roles can be ranked cross-linguistically in the following order from most accessible to least accessible:<ref>Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar, [[Linguistic Inquiry]], 8(1), 63-99</ref><ref>Comrie, Bernard; ''Language Universals and Linguistic Typology''; pp. 156-163; ISBN 0-226-11434-1</ref>
:Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Oblique > Genitive > Object of comparative
[[Ergative–absolutive]] languages have a similar hierarchy:
:[[Absolutive case|Absolutive]] > [[Ergative case|Ergative]] > Indirect Object > etc. (same as above)
This order is referred to as the '''accessibility hierarchy'''. If a language can relativize positions lower in the accessibility hierarchy, it can always relativize positions higher up, but not vice versa. For example, [[Malagasy language|Malagasy]] can relativize only subject and [[Chukchi language|Chukchi]] only absolutive arguments, whilst [[Basque language|Basque]] can relativize absolutives, ergatives and indirect objects, but not obliques or genitives or objects of comparatives. Similar hierarchies have been proposed in other circumstances, e.g. for pronominal reflexes.
[[English language|English]] can relativize all positions in the hierarchy. Here are some examples of the NP and relative clause usage from English:
{| align="center"
!Position !! With explicit relative pronoun !! With omitted relative pronoun !! In formal English
|-
|[[subject (grammar)|Subject]] || That’s the man [who ran away]. || — || That’s the man [who ran away].
|-
|[[Direct object]] || That’s the man [who I saw yesterday]. || That's the man [I saw yesterday]. || That’s the man [whom I saw yesterday].
|-
|[[Indirect object]] || That’s the man [who I gave the letter to]. || That’s the man [I gave the letter to]. || That’s the man [to whom I gave the letter].
|-
|[[oblique case|Oblique]] || That’s the man [who I was talking about]. || That’s the man [I was talking about]. || That’s the man [about whom I was talking].
|-
|[[Genitive]] || That’s the man [whose sister I know]. || — || That’s the man [whose sister I know].
|-
|Obj of Comp || That’s the man [who I am taller than]. || That’s the man [I am taller than]. || That’s the man [than whom I am taller].
|}
Some other examples:
{| align="center"
!Position !! Example
|-
|[[subject (grammar)|Subject]] || The girl [who came late] is my sister.
|-
|[[Direct object]] || I gave a rose to the girl [that Kate saw].
|-
|[[Indirect object]] || John knows the girl [I wrote a letter to].
|-
|[[oblique case|Oblique]] || I found the rock [which the robbers had hit John over the head with].
|-
|[[Genitive]] || The girl [whose father died] told me she was sad.
|-
|Obj of Comp || The first person [I can't run faster than] will win a million dollars.
|}
Languages which cannot relativize directly on noun phrases low in the accessibility hierarchy can sometimes use alternative [[grammatical voice|voices]] to "raise" the relevant noun phrase so that it can be relativized. The most common example is the use of [[applicative voice]]s to relativize obliques, but in such languages as Chukchi [[antipassive voice|antipassives]] are used to raise ergative arguments to absolutive.
For example, a language that can relativize only subjects could say this:
*The girl [who likes me] came to visit.
But not:
**The girl [whom I like] came to visit.
**The girl [whom I gave a rose to] came to visit.
**The girl [whom I watched a movie with] came to visit.
**The girl [whose father I know] came to visit.
**The girl [whom I know the father of] came to visit. (''equivalent to previous'')
**The girl [whom I am taller than] came to visit.
These languages might form an equivalent sentence by [[passive voice|passivization]]:
*The girl [who was liked by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was given a rose by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was watched a movie with by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was known the father of by me] came to visit.
*The girl [who was been taller than by me] came to visit.
Note that these passivized sentences get progressively more ungrammatical in English as they move down the accessibility hierarchy; the last two, in particular, are so ungrammatical as to be almost unparsable by English speakers. However, those languages with severe restrictions on which roles can be relativized are precisely those that can passivize almost any position, and hence the last two sentences would be normal in these languages.
A further example is languages that can relativize only subjects and direct objects. Hence the following would be possible:
*The girl [who I like] came to visit.
However, the other ungrammatical examples above would still be ungrammatical. These languages often allow an oblique object to be moved to the direct object slot by the use of the so-called ''[[applicative voice]]'', similar to how the [[passive voice]] moves an oblique object to the subject position. The above examples expressed in an applicative voice might be similar to the following (in not necessarily grammatical English):
*The girl [who I gave a rose] came to visit.
*The girl [who I with-watched a movie] came to visit.
*The girl [who I (of-)know the father] came to visit.
*The girl [who I out-tall] came to visit.
Modern grammars may use the accessibility hierarchy to order productions — e.g. in [[Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar]] the hierarchy corresponds to
the order of elements on the ''subcat'' list, and interacts with other principles
in explanations of binding facts. The hierarchy also figures in
[[Lexical Functional Grammar]] where it is known as Syntactic
Rank or the Relational Hierarchy.
==Examples==
===Indo-European languages===
====English====
{{main|English relative clauses}}
In English, a relative clause follows the noun it modifies. It is generally indicated by a relative pronoun at the start of the clause, although sometimes simply by word order. If the relative pronoun is the object of the verb in the relative clause, it comes at the beginning of the clause even though it would come at the end of an independent clause ("He is the man ''whom'' I saw", not "He is the man I saw ''whom''").
The choice of relative pronoun can be affected by whether the clause modifies a human or non-human noun, by whether the clause is restrictive or not,<ref>{{cite book |last=Kordić |first=Snježana |authorlink=Snježana Kordić |editor1-last=Suprun |editor1-first=Adam E |editor1-link= |editor2-last=Jachnow |editor2-first=Helmut |editor2-link= |title=Slavjano-germanskie jazykovye paralleli/Slawisch-germanische Sprachparallelen |trans_title= |series=Sovmestnyj issledovatel'skij sbornik slavistov universitetov v Minske i Bochume |publisher=Belorusskij gosudarstvennyj universitet |page=165 |language=German |chapter=Pronomina im Antezendenten und Restriktivität/Nicht-Restriktivität von Relativsätzen im Kroatoserbischen und Deutschen |trans_chapter=Pronouns in antecedents and restrictive / non-restrictive relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian and German |url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/426662.PRONOMINA_IM_ANTEZEDENT.PDF |location=Minsk |year=1996 |isbn= |oclc=637166830 |archivedate=29 August 2012 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6AHPw0DET |accessdate=29 August 2012}}</ref> and by the role (subject, direct object, or the like) of the relative pronoun in the relative clause.
*For a human antecedent, "who", "whom", or "that" is usually used ("He is the person ''who'' saw me", "He is the person ''whom'' I saw", "He is the person ''that'' I saw"). For a non-human antecedent, only "that" or "which" is used.
*For a non-human antecedent in a non-restrictive clause, only "which" is used ("The tree, ''which'' fell, is over there"); while either "which" or "that" may be used in a restrictive clause ("The tree ''which'' fell is over there", "The tree ''that'' fell is over there"){{mdash}}but some styles and prescriptive grammars require the use of "that" in the restrictive context).
*The relative pronoun pair "who or whom" must take the ''subjective'' case form ("who") if it is the subject of the relative clause ("He is the policeman who saw me"); and, in formal usage, the ''objective'' case form ("whom") if it is the object of the verb or preposition in the relative clause ("He is the policeman whom I saw", "He is the policeman whom I talked to", "He is the policeman to whom I talked"); but in informal usage "whom" is often replaced by "who".
In English, as in some other languages (such as French; see below), [[restrictiveness|non-restrictive]] relative clauses are set off with commas, but restrictive ones are not:
*"I met a man and a woman yesterday. The woman, ''who had a thick French accent'', was very pretty." (non-restrictive — does not narrow down who is being talked about)
*"I met two women yesterday, one with a thick French accent and one with a mild Italian one. The woman ''who had the thick French accent'' was very pretty." (restrictive — adds information about who is being referred to)
The status of "that" as a relative pronoun is not universally agreed. Traditional grammars treat "that" as a relative pronoun, but not all contemporary grammars do: e.g. the [[Cambridge Grammar of the English Language]] (pp. 1056–7) makes a case for treating "that" as a subordinator instead of a relative pronoun; and the [[British National Corpus]] treats "that" as a subordinating conjunction even when it introduces relative clauses. One motivation for the different treatment of "that" is that there are differences between "that" and "which" (e.g., one can say "in which" but not "in that", etc.).
====French====
The system of relative pronouns in [[French language|French]] is as complicated as, but similar in many ways to, the system in English.
When the pronoun is to act as the direct object of the relative clause, ''{{lang|fr|que}}'' is generally used, although ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'', which is inflected for grammatical gender and number, is sometimes used in order to give more precision. For example, any of the following is correct and would translate to "I talked to his/her father and mother, whom I already knew":
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec son père et sa mère, '''laquelle''' (f. sing.) je connaissais déjà.}}''
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec son père et sa mère, '''lesquels''' (m. pl.) je connaissais déjà.}}''
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec son père et sa mère, '''que''' je connaissais déjà.}}''
However, in the first sentence, "whom I already knew" refers only to the mother; in the second, it refers to both parents; and in the third, as in the English sentence, it could refer either only to the mother, or to both parents.
When the pronoun is to act as the subject of the relative clause, ''{{lang|fr|qui}}'' is generally used, though as before, ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' may be used instead for greater precision. (This is less common than the use of ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' with direct objects, however, since verbs in French often reflect the grammatical number of their subjects.)
Contrary to English, the relative pronoun can never be omitted in French, not even when the relative clause is embedded in another relative clause.
:Here is what I think '''Ø''' happened.
:''{{lang|fr|Voilà ce que je crois '''qui''' est arrivé.}}'' (literally: "Here is what I think '''that''' happened.")
When the pronoun is to act in a possessive sense, where the preposition ''de'' (of/from) would normally be used, the pronoun ''{{lang|fr|dont}}'' ("whose") is used, but does not act as a [[determiner (linguistics)|determiner]] for the noun "possessed":
:''{{lang|fr|J'ai parlé avec une femme '''dont''' le fils est mon collègue.}}'' ("I spoke with a woman whose son I work with." - ''lit.'', "I spoke with a woman ''of whom'' the son is my colleague.")
This construction is also used in non-possessive cases where the pronoun replaces an object marked by ''{{lang|fr|de}}'':
:''{{lang|fr|C'est l'homme '''dont''' j'ai parlé.}}'' ("That's the man '''of whom''' I spoke.")
More generally, in modern French, ''{{lang|fr|dont}}'' can signal the topic of the following clause, without replacing anything in this clause:
:''{{lang|fr|C'est un homme '''dont''' je crois qu'il doit très bien gagner sa vie.}}'' ("That's a man '''about whom''' I believe that he must make a lot of money.")
When the pronoun is to act as the object of a preposition (other than when ''{{lang|fr|dont}}'' is used), ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' is generally used, though ''{{lang|fr|qui}}'' can be used if the antecedent is human.
:''{{lang|fr|Ce sont des gens '''sur lesquels''' on peut compter.}}'' ("These are people '''that''' can be depended '''on'''.") [literally: "'''on whom''' one can depend"]
:''{{lang|fr|Ce sont des gens '''sur qui''' on peut compter.}}''
:''{{lang|fr|C'est une table '''sur laquelle''' on peut mettre beaucoup de choses.}}'' ("This is a table '''on which''' you can put a lot of things")
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>''C'est une table sur qui on peut mettre beaucoup de choses.''
There exists a further complication when the antecedent is a non-human indefinite pronoun. In that case, ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' cannot be used because it must agree in gender with its head, and an indefinite pronoun has no gender. Instead, ''{{lang|fr|quoi}}'', which usually means "what", is used.
:''{{lang|fr|C'est manifestement <u>quelque chose</u> '''à quoi''' il a beaucoup réfléchi.}}'' ("This is obviously <u>something</u> '''that '''he has thought a lot '''about '''.")
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>''C'est manifestement quelque chose à laquelle il a beaucoup réfléchi.''
The same happens when the antecedent is an entire clause, also lacking gender.
:''{{lang|fr|Il m'a dit d'aller me faire voir, '''à quoi''' j'ai répondu que...}}'' ("He told me to get lost, '''to which''' I replied that ...")
The preposition always appears before the pronoun, and the prepositions ''{{lang|fr|de}}'' and ''{{lang|fr|à}}'' (at/to) contract with ''{{lang|fr|lequel}}'' to form ''{{lang|fr|duquel}}'' and ''{{lang|fr|auquel}}'', or with ''{{lang|fr|lesquel(le)s}}'' to form ''{{lang|fr|desquel(le)s}}'' and ''{{lang|fr|auxquel(le)s}}''.
====German====
Aside from their highly inflected forms, [[German language|German]] relative pronouns are less complicated than English. There are two varieties. The more common one is based on the definite article ''der'', ''die'', ''das'', but with distinctive forms in the genitive (''dessen'', ''deren'') and in the dative plural (''denen''). Historically this is related to English ''that''. The second, which is more literary and used for emphasis, is the relative use of ''welcher'', ''welche'', ''welches'', comparable with English ''which''. As in most Germanic languages, including Old English, both of these inflect according to gender, case and number. They take their gender and number from the noun they modify, but the case from their function in their own clause.
:''Das Haus, in dem ich wohne, ist sehr alt.''
::The house in which I live is very old.
The relative pronoun ''dem'' is neuter singular to agree with ''Haus'', but dative because it follows a preposition in its own clause. On the same basis, it would be possible to substitute the pronoun ''welchem''.
However, German uses the uninflecting ''was'' ('what') as a relative pronoun when the antecedent is ''alles'', ''etwas'' or ''nichts'' ('everything', 'something', 'nothing'.).
:''Alles, was Jack macht, gelingt ihm.''
::Everything that Jack does is a success.
In German, all relative clauses are marked with commas.
====Spanish====
See [[Spanish pronouns#Relative pronouns|Relative pronouns]] in the Spanish pronouns article.
====Latin====
In [[Latin]], relative clauses follow the noun phrases they modify, and are always introduced using relative pronouns. Relative pronouns, like other pronouns in Latin, agree with their antecedents in [[grammatical gender|gender]] and [[grammatical number|number]], but not in [[grammatical case|case]]: a relative pronoun's case reflects its role in the relative clause it introduces, while its antecedent's case reflects the antecedent's role in the clause that contains the relative clause. (Nonetheless, it is possible for the pronoun and antecedent to be in the same case.) For example:
:'''''Urbēs''', '''quae''' sunt magnae, videntur. (''The '''cities''', '''which''' are large, are being seen.'')
:'''''Urbēs''', '''quās''' vīdī, erant magnae.'' (''The '''cities''', '''which''' I saw, were large.'')
In the former example, ''urbēs'' and ''quae'' both function as [[subject (grammar)|subjects]] in their respective clauses, so both are in the nominative case; and due to gender and number agreement, both are feminine and plural. In the latter example, both are still feminine and plural, and ''urbēs'' is still in the nominative case, but ''quae'' has been replaced by ''quās'', its accusative-case counterpart, to reflect its role as the [[direct object]] of ''vīdī''.
For more information on the forms of Latin relative pronouns, ''see'' [[Latin declension#Relative pronouns|the section on relative pronouns in the article on Latin declension]].
====Ancient Greek====
[[Ancient Greek]] follows the same rule as Latin.
*αἱ πόλεις, ἃς εἶδον, μεγάλαι εἰσίν.
:hai póleis, hàs eîdon, megálai eisin.
:The cities that I saw were large.
The Ancient Greek relative pronoun ὅς, ἥ, ὅ (''hós, {{Unicode|hḗ}}, hó'') is unrelated to the Latin word, since it derives from [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] {{PIE|*yos}}: in [[Proto-Greek language|Proto-Greek]], ''y'' before a vowel usually changed to ''h'' ([[debuccalization]]). [[Cognate]]s include [[Sanskrit]] ''yas, yā, yad'' (where ''o'' changed to short ''a'').<ref>{{LSJ|o(/s1|ὅς|ref}}</ref>
The Greek definite article ὁ, ἡ, τό (''ho, hē, tó'') has a different origin, since it is related to Sanskrit ''sa, sā'' and [[Latin]] ''is-tud''.<ref>{{LSJ|o(1|ὁ|shortref}}</ref>
====Serbo-Croatian====
[[Serbo-Croatian]] uses exactly the same principle as Latin does.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gallis |first=Arne | authorlink= |year=1956 |title=The syntax of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian: Viewed on a historical basis |url= |series= |location=Oslo | publisher=I Kommisjon Hos H. Aschehoug |page=186 |isbn= |oclc=601586 |lccn= |ol= |archivedate=| archiveurl= |accessdate=}}</ref> The following sentences are the Latin examples translated to Serbo-Croatian (the same sentences apply to the Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin standard variants of the [[pluricentric language]]):
:{||-
| ''Gradovi, '' || '''''koji''''' || ''su'' || ''veliki'', || ''vide'' || ''se''.
|-
|the cities:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || which:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || are:<small>PR.3.PL</small> || large:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || see:<small>PR.3.PL</small> || itself:<small>Refl</small>
|-
| colspan=6 | "The cities, which are large, are being seen."
|}
:{||-
| ''Gradovi, '' || '''''koje''''' || ''sam'' || ''vidio'', || ''bili'' || ''su'' || ''veliki''.
|-
|the cities:<small>NOM.m.PL</small> || which:<small>ACC.m.PL</small> || I am:<small>AUX.1.SG</small> || saw:<small>AP.m.SG</small> || were:<small>AP.m.PL </small> || are:<small>AUX.3.PL</small> || large:<small>NOM.m.PL</small>
|-
| colspan=7 | "The cities, which I saw, were large."
|}
In the first sentence, ''koji'' is in [[nominative]], and in the second ''koje'' is in [[accusative]]. Both words are two case forms of the same [[relative pronoun]], that is inflicted for [[Grammatical gender|gender]] (here: masculine), [[Grammatical number|number]] (here: plural), and [[Grammatical case|case]].
An alternative relativizing strategy is the use of the non-declinable word ''što'' 'that' to introduce a relative clause.<ref name=KordiGerm>{{cite book|last=Kordić |first=Snježana| authorlink=Snježana Kordić |year=1999 |language=German |title=Der Relativsatz im Serbokroatischen| trans_title=Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian |series=Studies in Slavic Linguistics ; vol. 10 |location=Munich |publisher= Lincom Europa |page=330 |isbn=3-89586-573-7 |oclc=42422661 |ol=2863535W}}</ref> This word is used together with a [[resumptive pronoun]], i.e. a [[personal pronoun]] that agrees in gender and number with the [[antecedent (grammar)|antecedent]], while its case form depends on its function in the relative clause.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Auwera, Johan van der |author2= Kučanda, Dubravko |title=Pronoun or conjunction - the Serbo-Croatian invariant relativizer ''što'' |trans_title= |url= |language= |journal=Linguistics |volume=23 |issue=6 |pages=917–962 |year=1985 |issn=0024-3949 |format= |jstor= |doi= }}</ref> The resumptive pronoun never appears in subject function.
:{||-
| ''Onaj'' || ''poznanik'' || '''''što''''' || ''si'' || '''''ga''''' || ''pozdravio''...
|-
|that:<small>NOM.m.SG</small> || acquaintance:<small>NOM.m.SG</small> || that || be:<small>AUX.2.SG</small> || him:<small>ACC</small> || greet:<small>AP.m.SG</small>
|-
| colspan=6 | "That acquaintance that (whom) you have said 'hello' to..."
|}
Relative clauses are relatively frequent in the modern Serbo-Croatian<ref name=KordiGerm/> since they have expanded as attributes at the expense of the [[participle]]s performing that function.<ref>{{cite book|last=Kordić |first=Snježana| authorlink=Snježana Kordić |year=1997 |title= Serbo-Croatian |url= |series=Languages of the World/Materials ; vol. 148 |location= Munich & Newcastle | publisher= Lincom Europa | pages=57–60 |isbn=3-89586-161-8 |oclc=37959860 |lccn= |ol=2863538W |archivedate=| archiveurl= |accessdate=}}</ref> The most frequently used relative pronoun is ''koji''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Maček |first=Dora| authorlink= |year=1986 |language= |title=Relativization in English and Serbo-Croatian | trans_title= |url= |series= The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian - English contrastive project, New studies ; vol. 3 |location=Zagreb | publisher= Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb | page=91 |isbn= |lccn= |oclc=14710495 |ol= |archivedate= | archiveurl= |accessdate= }}</ref> There are several ongoing changes concerning ''koji''. One of them is the spread of the genitive-accusative [[Syncretism (linguistics)|syncretism]] to the masculine inanimate of the pronoun.<ref>{{cite book|last=Browne |first=Wayles| authorlink=Wayles Browne |year=1986 |language= |title=Relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian in comparison with English | trans_title= |url= |series=The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian - English contrastive project, New studies ; vol. 4 |location=Zagreb | publisher=Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb | page=165 |isbn= |lccn= |oclc=14368553 |ol= |archivedate= | archiveurl= |accessdate= }}</ref> The cause lies in the necessity to disambiguate the [[Subject (grammar)|subject]] and the [[Object (grammar)|object]] by [[Grammatical case|morphological]] means. The nominative-accusative syncretism of the form ''koji'' is inadequate, so the genitive form ''kojeg'' is preferred:<ref>{{cite book|last=Kordić |first=Snježana| authorlink=Snježana Kordić |year=1995 |language=Serbo-Croatian |title= Relativna rečenica| trans_title=Relative Clauses |url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/426507.Kordic_Relativna_recenica.pdf |series=Znanstvena biblioteka Hrvatskog filološkog društva ; vol. 25 |location=Zagreb | publisher=Matica hrvatska & Hrvatsko filološko društvo | pages=113–128 |isbn=953-6050-04-8 |oclc=37606491 |lccn=97154457 |ol=2863536W |archivedate=8 July 2012 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/690B8xaDu |accessdate=1 August 2012}}</ref>
:Nominative-accusative syncretism:
:{||-
| ''Auto'' || '''''koji''''' || ''je'' || ''udario'' || ''autobus''
|-
|car:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small> || which:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small> || be:<small>AUX.3.SG</small> || hit:<small>AP.m.SG</small> || bus:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small>
|}
:Genitive-accusative syncretism:
:{||-
| ''Auto'' || '''''kojeg''''' || ''je'' || ''udario'' || ''autobus''
|-
|car:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small> || which:<small>ACC/GEN.m.SG</small> || be:<small>AUX.3.SG</small> || hit:<small>AP.m.SG</small> || bus:<small>NOM/ACC.m.SG</small>
|-
| colspan=5 | "Car hit by bus"
|}
====Celtic languages====
{{see also|Irish syntax#Relative clauses}}
The [[Celtic languages]] (at least the modern [[Insular Celtic languages]]) distinguish two types of relative clause: direct relative clauses and indirect relative clauses. A direct relative clause is used where the relativized element is the subject or the direct object of its clause (e.g. "the man ''who'' saw me", "the man ''whom'' I saw"), while an indirect relative clause is used where the relativized element is a genitival (e.g. "the man ''whose'' daughter is in the hospital") or is the object of a preposition (e.g. "the man ''to whom'' I gave the book"). Direct relative clauses are formed with a [[relative pronoun]] (unmarked for case) at the beginning; a gap (in terms of syntactic theory, a [[trace (linguistics)|trace]], indicated by (''t)'' in the examples below) is left in the relative clause at the pronoun's expected position.
;Irish
{|
| an || fear || a || chonaic || (''t)'' || mé
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL || saw || || me
|-
| colspan=6 | "the man who saw me"
|}
;Welsh
{|
| y || dyn || a || welais
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL || I saw
|-
| colspan=4 | "the man whom I saw"
|}
The direct relative particle "a" is not used with "mae" ("is") in Welsh; instead the form "sydd" or "sy'" is used:
{|
| y || dyn || sy'n || blewog || iawn
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL + is || hairy || very
|-
| colspan=5 | "the man who is very hairy"
|}
There is also a defective verb "piau" (usually lenited to "biau"), corresponding to "who own(s)":
{|
| y || dyn || piau || castell || anferth
|-
| the || man || DIR-REL + owns || castle || huge
|-
| colspan=5 | "the man who owns a huge castle"
|}
Indirect relative clauses are formed with a [[relativizer]] at the beginning; the relativized element remains ''in situ'' in the relative clause.
;Irish
{|
| an || fear || a || bhfuil || a || iníon || san || ospidéal
|-
| the || man || IND-REL || is || his || daughter || in the || hospital
|-
| colspan=8 | "the man whose daughter is in the hospital"
|}
;Welsh
{|
| y || dyn || y || rhois || y || llyfr || iddo
|-
| the || man || IND-REL || I gave || the || book || to him
|-
| colspan=7 | "the man to whom I gave the book"
|}
Note that although both the Irish relative pronoun and the relativizer are 'a', the relative pronoun triggers lenition of a following consonant, while the relativizer triggers eclipsis (see [[Irish initial mutations]]).
Both direct and indirect relative particles can be used simply for emphasis, often in answer to a question or as a way of disagreeing with a statement. For instance, the Welsh example above, "y dyn a welais" means not only "the man whom I saw", but also "it was the man (and not anyone else) I saw"; and "y dyn y rhois y llyfr iddo" can likewise mean "it was the man (and not anyone else) to whom I gave the book".
===Semitic languages===
====Hebrew====
In [[Biblical Hebrew language|Biblical Hebrew]], relative clauses were headed with the word ''asher'', which could be either a [[relative pronoun]] or a [[relativizer]]. In later times, ''asher'' became interchangeable with the prefix ''she-'' (which is also used as a conjunction, with the sense of English ''that''), and in [[Modern Hebrew language|Modern Hebrew]], this use of ''she-'' is much more common than ''asher'', except in some formal, archaic, or poetic writing. In meaning, the two are interchangeable; they are used regardless of whether the clause is modifying a human, regardless of their grammatical case in the relative clause, and regardless of whether the clause is restrictive.
Further, because Hebrew does not generally use its word for ''is'', ''she-'' is used to distinguish adjective phrases used in epithet from adjective phrases used in attribution:
:''Ha-kise l'-yad-kha.'' ("The chair is next to you." - ''lit.'', "The-chair [is] to-hand-your.")
:''Ha-kise '''she-'''l'-yad-kha shavur.'' ("The chair next to you is broken." - ''lit.'', "The-chair '''that'''-[is]-to-hand-your [is] broken.")
(This use of ''she-'' does not occur with simple adjectives, as Hebrew has a different way of making that distinction. For example, ''Ha-kise adom'' means "The chair [is] red," while ''Ha-kis'e ha-adom shavur'' means "The red chair is broken" - literally, "The chair the red [is] broken.")
Since 1994, the official rules of Modern Hebrew (as determined by the [[Academy of the Hebrew Language]]) have stated that relative clauses are to be punctuated in Hebrew the same way as in English (described above). That is, non-restrictive clauses are to be set off with commas, while restrictive clauses are not:
:''Ha-kise, '''she-'''ata yoshev alav, shavur.'' ("The chair, '''which''' you are sitting on, is broken.")
:''Ha-kise '''she-'''ata yoshev alav shavur.'' ("The chair '''that''' you are sitting on is broken.")
Nonetheless, many, perhaps most, speakers of Modern Hebrew still use the pre-1994 rules, which were based on the German rules (described above). Except for the simple adjective-phrase clauses described above, these speakers set off all relative clauses, restrictive or not, with commas:
:''Ha-kise, '''she-'''ata yoshev alav, shavur.'' ("The chair '''that''' you are sitting on is broken," ''or'' "The chair, '''which''' you are sitting on, is broken.")
One major difference between relative clauses in Hebrew and those in (for example) English is that in Hebrew, what might be called the "regular" pronoun is not always suppressed in the relative clause. To reuse the prior example:
:''Ha-kise, '''she-'''ata yoshev '''alav''', shavur.'' (''lit.'', "The chair, '''which''' you are sitting '''on it''', [is] broken.")
More specifically, if this pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, it is always suppressed. If it is the direct object, then it is usually suppressed, though it is also correct to leave it in. (If it is suppressed, then the special preposition ''et'', used to mark the direct object, is suppressed as well.) If it is the object of a preposition, it must be left in, because in Hebrew - unlike in English - a preposition cannot appear without its object. When the pronoun is left in, ''she-'' might more properly be called a [[relativizer]] than a relative pronoun.
The [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] [[relativizer]] ''she-'' ‘that’ "might be a shortened form of the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] [[relativizer]] ''‘asher'' ‘that’, which is related to [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] ''‘ashru'' ‘place’ (cf. Semitic *''‘athar'') Alternatively, [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] ''‘asher'' derived from ''she-'', or it was a convergence of Proto-Semitic ''dhu'' (cf. Aramaic ''dī'') and ''‘asher'' [...] Whereas [[Israeli Hebrew|Israeli]] ''she-'' functions both as [[complementizer]] and [[relativizer]], ''ashér'' can only function as a [[relativizer]]."<ref>A quote from p. 79 of [[Ghil'ad Zuckermann|Zuckermann, Ghil'ad]] (2006), "Complement Clause Types in Israeli", ''Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology'', edited by [[R. M. W. Dixon]] and [[Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald]], [[Oxford]]: [[Oxford University Press]], pp. 72-92 (Chapter 3).</ref>
====Arabic====
=====Literary Arabic=====
In [[Modern Standard Arabic|Modern Standard]] and [[Classical Arabic]] there is a relative pronoun (in Arabic: {{lang|ar|الاسم الموصول}} {{transl|ar|DIN|''al-ism al-mawṣūl''}}) ''allaḏī'' (masculine singular), feminine singular ''allatī'', masculine plural ''allaḏīna'', feminine plural ''allawātī'', masculine dual ''allaḏānī'' (nominative) / ''allaḏayni'' (accusative and genitive), feminine dual ''allatānī'' (nom.) / ''allataynī'' (acc. and gen.).
Its usage has two specific rules: it agrees with the antecedent in gender, number and case, and it is used only if the antecedent is definite. If the antecedent is indefinite, no relative pronoun is used. The former is called ''jumlat sila'' (conjunctive sentence) while the latter is called ''jumlat sifa'' (descriptive sentence).
*{{lang|ar|الولد الذي رأيته في الصف أمس غائب اليوم }}
:''al-waladu (a)lladhi ra’aytuhu fī (a)ṣ-ṣaffi ’amsi ġā’ibun al-yawma''
:"The boy I saw in class yesterday is missing today". (relative pronoun present)
*{{lang|ar|هذا ولد رأيته في الصف أمس}}
:''hāḏā waladun ra’aytu-hu fī (a)ṣ-ṣaffi ’amsi''
:"This is a boy I saw in class yesterday". (relative pronoun absent)
=====Colloquial Arabic=====
In Colloquial Arabic the multiple forms of the relative pronoun have been levelled in favour of a single form, a simple conjunction, which in most dialects is ''illi'', and is never omitted. So in Palestinian Arabic the above sentences would be:
* ''alwalad illi shuftō fi (a)ssaff embārih ghāyeb alyōm''
* ''hāda walad illi shuftō fi (a)ssaff embārih''
As in Hebrew, the regular pronoun referring to the antecedent is repeated in the relative clause - literally, "the boy whom I saw '''him''' in class..." (the ''-hu'' in ''ra'aituhu'' and the ''-ō'' in ''shuftō''). The rules of suppression in Arabic are identical to those of Hebrew: obligatory suppression in the case that the pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, obligatory retention in the case that the pronoun is the object of a preposition, and at the discretion of the speaker if the pronoun is the direct object. The only difference from Hebrew is that, in the case of the direct object, it is preferable to retain the pronoun rather than suppress it.
===Japonic languages===
====Japanese====
Japanese does not employ relative pronouns to relate relative clauses to their antecedents. Instead, the relative clause directly modifies the noun phrase as an [[attributive verb]], occupying the same syntactic space as an attributive adjective (before the noun phrase).
:この おいしい 天ぷら
:''kono oishii tempura''
:"this delicious [[tempura]]"
:姉が 作った 天ぷら
:''ane-ga tsukutta tempura''
:''sister-SUBJ make-PAST tempura''
:"the tempura [that] my sister made"
:天ぷらを 食べた 人
:''tempura-o tabeta hito''
:''tempura-OBJ eat-PAST person''
:"the person who ate the tempura"
In fact, since so-called ''i-adjectives'' in Japanese are technically intransitive stative verbs, it can be argued that the structure of the first example (with an adjective) is the same as the others. A number of "adjectival" meanings, in Japanese, are customarily shown with relative clauses consisting solely of a verb or a verb complex:
:光っている ビル
:''hikatte-iru biru''
:''lit-be building''
:"an illuminated building"
:濡れている 犬
:''nurete-iru inu''
:''be_wet-be dog''
:"a wet dog"
Often confusing to speakers of languages which use relative pronouns are relative clauses which would in their own languages require a preposition with the pronoun to indicate the semantic relationship among the constituent parts of the phrase.
:紅茶を 淹れる ために お湯を 沸かした やかん
:''kōcha-o ireru tame ni oyu-o wakashita yakan''
:''tea-OBJ make purpose for hot-water-OBJ boiled kettle''
:"the kettle I boiled water '''in''' for tea"
Here, the preposition "in" is missing from the Japanese ("missing" in the sense that the corresponding postposition would be used with the main clause verb in Japanese) Common sense indicates what the meaning is in this case, but the "missing preposition" can sometimes create ambiguity.
:天ぷらを 作った 人
:''tempura-o tsukutta hito''
:''tempura-OBJ made person''
:(1) "the person who made the tempura"
:(2) "the person [someone] made the tempura '''for'''"
In this case, (1) is the context-free interpretation of choice, but (2) is possible with the proper context.
:僕が 記事を 書いた レストラン
:''boku-ga kiji-o kaita resutoran''
:''I-SUBJ article-OBJ wrote restaurant''
:(1) "a restaurant '''about which''' I wrote an article"
:(2) "a restaurant '''in which''' I wrote an article"
Without more context, both (1) and (2) are equally viable interpretations of the Japanese.
'''Note:''' Spaces are not ordinarily used in Japanese, but they are supplemented here to facilitate parsing by non-speakers of the language.
===Caucasian languages===
====Georgian====
In [[Georgian language|Georgian]], there are two strategies for forming relative clauses. The first is similar to that of English or Latin: the modified noun is followed by a relativizer that inflects for its embedded case and may take a postposition. The relativized noun may be preceded by a determiner.
:{|
| (ის) || კაცი, || რომელიც || პარკში || წავიდა, || გაზეთს || კითხულობს
|-
| ''(is)'' || ''ḳac-i,'' || ''romel-i-c'' || ''ṗarḳ=ši'' || ''c̣avida,'' || ''gazet-s'' || ''ḳitxulobs''
|-
| (that.NOM) || man-NOM || which-NOM-REL || park=to || he.went || newspaper-DAT || he.reads.it
|-
| colspan=7 | "the man who went to the park is reading the newspaper"
|}
:{|
| (ის) || ქალი, || რომელსაც || წერილს || დავუწერ, || თბილისში || ცხოვრობს
|-
| ''(is)'' || ''kal-i,'' || ''romel-sa-c'' || ''c̣eril-s'' || ''davuc̣er,'' || ''tbilis=ši'' || ''cxovrobs''
|-
| (that.NOM) || woman-NOM || which-DAT-REL || letter-DAT || I.will.write.it.to.her || Tbilisi-in || she.lives
|-
| colspan=7 | "the woman who I will write a letter to lives in [[Tbilisi]]"
|}
:{|
| ნინომ || (ის) || სკამი, || რომელზეც || ვზივარ, || იყიდა
|-
| ''Nino-m'' || ''(is)'' || ''sḳam-i,'' || romel=ze-c || vzivar, || ''iqida''
|-
| Nino-ERG || (that.NOM) || chair-NOM || which=on-REL || I.sit || she.bought.it
|-
| colspan=6 | "Nino bought the chair I am sitting in"
|}
A second, more colloquial, strategy is marked by the invariant particle რომ ''rom''. This particle is generally the second word of the clause, and since it does not decline, is often followed by the appropriately cased third-person pronoun to show the relativized noun's role in the embedded clause. A determiner precedes the relativized noun, which is also usually preceded by the clause as a whole.
:{|
| წერილს || რომ || მას || დავუწერ, || ის || ქალი || თბილისში || ცხოვრობს
|-
| ''c̣̣eril-s'' || ''rom'' || ''mas'' || ''davuc̣̣er,'' || ''is'' || ''kal-i'' || ''tbilis=ši'' || ''cxovrobs''
|-
| letter-DAT || REL || 3S.DAT || I.will.write.it.to.her || that.NOM || woman-NOM || Tbilisi-in || she.lives
|-
| colspan=8 | "the woman who I will write a letter to lives in [[Tbilisi]]"
|}
:{|
| მე || რომ || მასზე || ვზივარ, || ის || სკამი || ნინომ || იყიდა
|-
| ''me'' || ''rom'' || ''mas=ze'' || ''vzivar,'' || ''is'' || ''sḳam-i'' || ''Nino-m'' || ''iqida''
|-
| 1S || REL || 3S.DAT=on || I.sit || that.NOM || chair-NOM || Nino-ERG || she.bought.it
|-
| colspan=8 | "Nino bought the chair I am sitting in"
|}
Such relative clauses may be internally headed. In such cases, the modified noun moves into the clause, taking the appropriate declension for the its role therein (thus eliminating the need for the third person pronouns in the above examples), and leaves behind the determiner (which now functions as a pronoun) in the matrix clause.
:{|
| ქალს || რომ || წერილს || დავუწერ, || ის || თბილისში || ცხოვრობს
|-
| ''kal-s'' || ''rom'' || ''c̣̣eril-s'' || ''davuc̣̣er,'' || ''is'' || ''tbilis=ši'' || ''cxovrobs''
|-
| woman-DAT || REL || letter-DAT || I.will.write.it.to.her || 3S.NOM || Tbilisi-in || she.lives
|-
| colspan=7 | "the woman who I will write a letter to lives in [[Tbilisi]]"
|}
===Austronesian languages===
====Tagalog====
[[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] uses the [[Relative clause#Gapped relative clause|gapping strategy]] to form relative clauses, with the [[complementizer|complementiser]], ''na'' / ''=ng'' 'that', separating the head, which is the noun being modified, from the actual relative clause. In (1a) below, ''lalaki'' 'man' serves as the head, while ''nagbigay ng bigas sa bata'' 'gave rice to the child' is the relative clause.
:{|
| (1) || a. || '''lalaki''' || =ng || nagbigay || ____ || ng || bigas || sa || bata
|-
| || || man || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|act}}.gave || || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=8 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|-
|-
| || b. || Nagbigay || ''ang'' || ''lalaki'' || ng || bigas || sa || bata.
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|nom}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=8 | "The man gave rice to the child."
|}
The gap inside the relative clause corresponds to the position that the noun acting as the head would have normally taken, had it been in a [[Sentence (linguistics)#By purpose|declarative sentence]]. In (1a), the gap is in subject position within the relative clause. This corresponds to the subject position occupied by ''ang lalaki'' 'the man' in the declarative sentence in (1b).
There is a constraint in Tagalog on the position from which a noun can be relativised and in which a gap can appear: A noun has to be the subject within the relative clause in order for it to be relativised. The phrases in (2) are ungrammatical because the nouns that have been relativised are not the subjects of their respective relative clauses. In (2a), the gap is in direct object position, while in (2b), the gap is in indirect object position.
:{|
| (2) || a. || * || '''bigas''' || na || nagbigay || ang || lalaki || ____ || sa || bata
|-
| || || || rice || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|nom}} || man || || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || || colspan=8 | for: "rice that the man gave to the child"
|-
|-
| || b. || * || '''bata''' || =ng || nagbigay || ang || lalaki || ng || bigas || ____
|-
| || || || child || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|nom}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice ||
|-
| || || || colspan=8 | for: "child that the man gave rice to"
|}
The correct Tagalog translations for the intended meanings in (2) are found in (3), where the verbs have been passivised in order to raise the logical direct object in (3a) and the logical indirect object in (3b) to subject position. (Tagalog can have more than one [[Tagalog grammar#Trigger .28voice .2F focus.29|passive voice]] form for any given verb.)
:{|
| (3) || a. || '''bigas''' || na || ibinigay || ng || lalaki || sa || bata
|-
| || || rice || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|psv}}.gave || {{sc|gen}} || man || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "rice that the man gave to the child"
|-
| || || colspan=7 | (or: "rice that was given to the child by the man")
|-
| || b. || '''bata''' || =ng || binigyan || ng || lalaki || ng || bigas
|-
| || || child || {{sc|comp}} || gave.{{sc|psv}} || {{sc|gen}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "child that the man gave rice to"
|-
| || || colspan=7 | (or: "child that was given rice to by the man")
|}
Tagalog relative clauses can be left-headed, as in (1a) and (3), right-headed, as in (4), or internally headed, as in (5).
:{|
| (4) || nagbigay || ng || bigas || sa || bata || na || '''lalaki'''
|-
| || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child || {{sc|comp}} || man
|-
| || colspan=7 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|}
:{|
| (5) || a. || nagbigay || na || '''lalaki''' || ng || bigas || sa || bata
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|comp}} || man || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|-
|-
| || b. || nagbigay || ng || bigas || na || '''lalaki''' || sa || bata
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.gave || {{sc|acc}} || rice || {{sc|comp}} || man || {{sc|dat}} || child
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "man that gave rice to the child"
|}
In (4), the head, ''lalaki'' 'man', is found after or to the right of the relative clause, ''nagbigay ng bigas sa bata'' 'gave rice to the child'. In (5), the head is found in some position inside the relative clause. Note that when the head appears to the right of or internally to the relative clause, the complementiser appears to the left of the head. When the head surfaces to the left of the relative clause, the complementiser surfaces to the right of the head.
There are exceptions to the subjects-only constraint to relativisation mentioned above. The first involves relativising the [[Possession (linguistics)|possessor]] of a noun phrase within the relative clause.
:{|
| (6) || '''bata''' || =ng || nasugatan || ang || daliri || ____
|-
| || child || {{sc|comp}} || injured.{{sc|psv}} || {{sc|nom}} || finger ||
|-
| || colspan=6 | "child whose finger was injured"
|}
In (6), the head, ''bata'' 'child', is the owner of the injured finger. Note that ''ang daliri'' 'the finger' is the subject of the verb, ''nasugatan'' 'was injured'.
Another exception involves relativising the [[Oblique case|oblique]] noun phrase.
:{|
| (7) || a. || '''ospital''' || (na) || kung || saan || ipinanganak || si || Juan
|-
| || || hospital || {{sc|comp}} || {{sc|q-comp}} || where || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "hospital where Juan was born"
|-
|-
| || b. || Nagtanong || siya || kung || saan || ipinanganak || si || Juan.
|-
| || || {{sc|act}}.asked || {{sc|3sg.nom}} || {{sc|q-comp}} || where || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "She asked where Juan was born."
|-
|-
| || c. || Ipinanganak || si || Juan || ''sa'' || ''ospital''.
|-
| || || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan || {{sc|loc}} || hospital
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "Juan was born at the hospital."
|-
|-
| || d. || Saan || ipinanganak || si || Juan?
|-
| || || where || {{sc|psv}}.bore || {{sc|nom}} || Juan
|-
| || || colspan=7 | "Where was Juan born?"
|}
When an oblique noun phrase is relativised, as in (7a), ''na'' 'that', the complementiser that separates the head from the relative clause, is optional. The relative clause itself is also composed differently. In the examples in (1a), and in (3) to (6), the relative clauses are simple declaratives that contain a gap. However, the relative clause in (7a) looks more like an [[Indirect speech|indirect]] [[Sentence (linguistics)#By purpose|question]], complete with the [[Sentence (linguistics)#By purpose|interrogative]] complementiser, ''kung'' 'if', and a pre-verbally positioned [[Interrogative word|WH-word]] like ''saan'' 'where', as in (7b). The sentence in (7c) is the declarative version of the relative clause in (7a), illustrating where the head, ''ospital'' 'hospital', would have been "before" relativisation. The question in (7d) shows the direct question version of the [[Dependent clause|subordinate]] indirect question in (7b).
====Hawaiian====
Relative clauses in [[Hawaiian language|Hawaiian]]<ref>Alexander, W. D., ''Introduction to Hawaiian Grammar'', Dover, 2004 (originally 1864): 45-47.</ref> are avoided unless they are short.
If in English a relative clause would have a copula and an adjective, in Hawaiian the antecedent is simply modified by the adjective: "The honest man" instead of "the man who is honest". If the English relative clause would have a copula and a noun, in Hawaiian an appositive is used instead: "Paul, an apostle" instead of "Paul, who was an apostle".
If the English relative pronoun would be the subject of an intransitive or passive verb, in Hawaiian a participle is used instead of a full relative clause: "the people fallen" instead of "the people who fell"; "the thing given" instead of "the thing that was given". But when the relative clause's antecedent is a person, the English relative pronoun would be the subject of the relative clause, and the relative clause's verb is active and transitive, a relative clause is used and it begins with the relative pronoun ''nana'': ''The one who me (past) sent'' = "the one who sent me".
If in English a relative pronoun would be the object of a relative clause, in Hawaiian the possessive form is used so as to treat the antecedent as something possessed: ''the things of me to have seen'' = "the things that I saw"; ''Here is theirs to have seen'' = This is what they saw".
===Andean languages===
====Aymara====
{|
| thuquñap || punchu
|-
| dance-INF-3POSS || poncho
|-
| colspan=6 | "the poncho he is dancing with"
|}
===Chinese languages===
====Mandarin====
{{further|Chinese grammar}}
In [[Mandarin language|Mandarin Chinese]], the relative clause is similar to other adjectival phrases in that it precedes the noun that it modifies, and ends with the relative particle ''de''. If the relative clause is missing a subject but contains an object (in other words, if the verb is transitive), the main-clause noun is the implied subject of the relative clause:<ref>The examples in this section are from Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A., ''Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar'', Univ. of California Press, 1981: 579-585.</ref>
:种水果的农人
:''zhòng shuǐguǒ de nóngrén''
: grow fruit (particle) farmer
: "the fruit-growing farmer" or "the farmer who grows fruit"
If the object but not the subject is missing from the relative clause, the main-clause noun is the implied object of the relative clause:
:他们种的水果
:''tāmen zhòng de shuǐguǒ''
: they grow (particle) fruit
: "the by-them-grown fruit" or "the fruit that they grow"
If both the subject and the object are missing from the relative clause, then the main-clause noun could either be the implied subject or the implied object of the relative clause; sometimes which is intended is clear from the context, especially when the subject or object of the verb must be human and the other must be non-human:
:今天赢的钱付房租
:''jīntiān yíng de qián fù fáng zū''
: today win (particle) money pay house rent
: "the won-today money pays the rent" or "the money that [we] won today pays the rent"
But sometimes ambiguity arises when it is not clear from the context whether the main-clause noun is intended as the subject or the object of the relative clause:
:昨天批评的人都不在这里
:''zuótiān pīping de rén dōu bu zài zhèlǐ''
:yesterday criticize (particle) person all not at here
:"the people who criticized [others] yesterday are all not here" or "the people whom [others] criticized yesterday are all not here"
However, the first meaning (in which the main-clause noun is the subject) is usually intended, as the second can be unambiguously stated using a passive voice marker:
:昨天被批评的人都不在这里
:''zuótiān bèi pīping de rén dōu bu zài zhèlǐ''
:yesterday (passive marker) criticize (particle) person all not at here
:"the people who were criticized yesterday are all not here"
Sometimes a relative clause has both a subject and an object specified, in which case the main-clause noun is the implied object of an implied preposition in the relative clause:
:我写信的毛笔
:''wŏ xiě xìn de máobǐ''
:I write letter (particle) brushpen
:the brushpen that I write letters with
It is also possible to include the preposition explicitly in the relative clause, but in that case it takes a pronoun object (a [[personal pronoun]] with the function of a relative pronoun):<ref>This example is from Chaofen Sun, ''Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction'', Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 189.</ref>
:我替他画画的人
:''wŏ tì tā huà huà de rén''
:I for him/her draw picture (particle) person
:"the person for whom I drew the picture"
Free relative clauses are formed in the same way, omitting the modified noun after the particle ''de''. As with bound relative clauses, ambiguity may arise; for example, 吃的 ''chī de'' "eat (particle)" may mean "that which is eaten", i.e. "food", or "those who eat".<ref>Sun (2006), p. 187.</ref>
===Creoles===
====Hawaiian Creole English====
In [[Hawaiian Creole English]], an English-based [[creole language|creole]] also called Hawaiian Pidgin or simply Pidgin, relative clauses work in a way that is similar to, but not identical to, the way they work in English.<ref>Sakoda, Kent, and Siegel, Jeff. ''Pidgin Grammar'', Bess Press, 2003: pp. 102ff.</ref> As in English, a relative pronoun that serves as the object of the verb in the relative clause can optionally be omitted: For example,
:''Ai neva si da buk daet Lisa wen bai''
:I never see the book that Lisa (past) buy
:I didn't see the book that Lisa bought
can also be expressed with the relative pronoun omitted, as
:''Ai neva si da buk Lisa wen bai''
:I never see the book Lisa (past) buy
:I didn't see the book Lisa bought
However, relative pronouns serving as the subject of a relative clause show more flexibility than in English; they can be included, as is mandatory in English, they can be omitted, or they can be replaced by another pronoun. For example, all of the following can occur and all mean the same thing:
:''Get wan nada grl hu no kaen ste stil''
:There's one other girl who no can stay still
:There's another girl who cannot stay still
:''Get wan nada grl no kaen ste stil''
:There's one other girl no can stay still
:''Get wan nada grl shi no kaen ste stil''
:There's one other girl she no can stay still
====Gullah====
In [[Gullah language|Gullah]], an English-based creole spoken along the southeastern coast of the United States, no relative pronoun is normally used for the subject of a relative clause. For example:
:''Duh him cry out so''
:It him cry out so
:It's he who cries out so
:''Enty duh dem shum dey?''
:Ain't it them saw_him there?
:Isn't it they who saw him there?
==See also==
*[[Long-distance dependencies]]
*[[Reduced relative clause]]
==References==
<references/>
*[[Rodney Huddleston]] and [[Geoffrey Pullum|Geoffrey K. Pullum]] (2002). ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language''. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43146-8.
*A.J.Thomson & A.V.Martinet (4th edition 1986). ''A Practical English Grammar''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-431342-5. §72-85. (For the basic "rules" of the English relative pronoun in a presentation suitable for foreign learners.)
* Keenan & Comrie, "Data on the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy", [[Language (journal)|Language]], vol. 55, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 333–351 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/412588]
==External links==
*[http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsARelativeClause.htm SIL Glossary of linguistic terms - What is a relative clause?]
*[http://writingforresults.net/Acro_3/4_msg/4_grammr/relative.pdf Relative Clause: Does it specify which one? Or does it just describe the one and only?]
*[http://www.englishgrammar.org/relative-clauses-2/ ''Using relative clauses''], by Jennifer Frost
{{DEFAULTSORT:Relative Clause}}
[[Category:Linguistic typology]]
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Syntactic entities]]' |
