Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

3.3.2.3.3.Non-restrictive relative clauses

quickinfo

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

321

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

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

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

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

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

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

322

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

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

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

323

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

324

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

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

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

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

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

325

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

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

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

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

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

326

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

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

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

327

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

Hij

heeft

mij, [RC

die

speciaal

gevraagd

?heb1p.sg/%heeft3p.sg],

een gesigneerd exemplaar

gegeven.

has

who

there

especially

for

asked

have/has

a signed copy

given

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

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

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

328

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

vind

dat

ik, [RC

die

hij

dat boek

gestuurd

heeft],

hem

moet

bedanken.

find

that

who

that book

sent

has

him

must

thank

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

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

329

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

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

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

330

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

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

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

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

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

331

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

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

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

332

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

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

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

333

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

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

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

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

334

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

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

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

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

335

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

a'.

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

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

b'.

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

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

336

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

a'.

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

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

b'.

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

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

337

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

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

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

338

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

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

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

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

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

339

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

a'.

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

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

b'.

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

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

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

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

340

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

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

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