Relative clauses
In the beginning we defined a relative clause as a clause which modifies the head noun within a noun phrase.1 Consider the following example:
(35) [The woman [that I love]S՛ ]NP is moving to Argentina.
This example illustrates the three basic parts of a relative clause construction: the head noun (woman), the modifying clause (I love), and the RELATIVIZER (that) which links the modifying clause to the head. Notice that the modifying clause is incomplete: it lacks a direct object, even though its verb (love) requires one. Of course, the reason this example is acceptable is that the head noun is “understood” to be the object of love. Thus, the head noun actually has two different roles in this example: it functions as the subject of the main clause, but at the same time it is interpreted as being the object of the modifying clause.
We will be primarily concerned with the internal structure of the relative clause. In addition to the structural features, which are potentially significant in all subordinate clause constructions, there are some additional issues which only arise in relative constructions. These include: the position of the modifying clause relative to the head noun; the nature of the relativizer, if any; the function which the head noun is understood to fill within the modifying clause, and the manner in which this function is indicated. But before we turn to these structural issues, let us briefly discuss the semantic function of relative clauses.
1. Note: a number of authors use the term “Relative clause” to refer to the entire NP which contains a clausal modifier, including the head noun. The term “Relative clause” refers only to the clausal modifier (or “modifying clause,” as in the following paragraph); and the NP which contains a Relative clause is called a “Relative clause construction.”
