Arguments vs. adjuncts as heads of relative clauses

[Matthew S Dryer]

I think it should be emphasized that the query repeated below uses the
question of what NPs can be relativized in a nonstandard sense.  Normally,
when linguists talk about what NPs can be relativized or what grammatical
roles the head of a relative clause can have in a language, they are
referring to the grammatical role of the head in the RELATIVE clause, not
in the MAIN clause.  In all three examples cited by Whitney Postman in her
message, repeated here, the head of the relative clause is functioning as
the subject in the relative clause (though they have different functions
in the main clause):

(1) The woman [who is singing a lullaby] is holding a baby.
(2) The woman is holding a baby [who is sleeping].
(3) The baby is held by the woman [who is singing a lullaby].

These contrast with examples like (4) to (6), where the heads differ as to
their role in the relative clause:

(4) The woman [who is singing a lullaby] is holding a baby.
(5) The baby [that the woman is holding] is sleeping.
(6) The woman [that the baby is being held by] is singing.

Grammatical restrictions on what role the head can have in the main clause
are much less common than restrictions on what role the head can have in
the relative clause.

Matthew Dryer

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Whitney Anne Postman wrote:

> Dear Fellow Austronesianists,
>
> I have a question about the syntactic status of heads of relative
> clauses (hence, 'RCs') in Austronesian languages. Are there any
> languages in this family which restrict relativization to arguments,
> namely subjects and direct objects, and prohibit relativization of
> oblique terms such as indirect objects?
>
> Let me get concrete, here. Just about any NP can be relativized in
> English. For example, (1), (2) and (3) are all fine.
>
> (1) The woman [who is singing a lullaby] is holding a baby.
> (2) The woman is holding a baby [who is sleeping].
> (3) The baby is held by the woman [who is singing a lullaby].
>
> In (1), the RC head is the subject of the main clause (hence 'MC').
> In (2), the direct object of the MC is the head of the RC. In (3),
> the RC head is the adjunct "the woman".
>
> Does anyone know of languages which might allow structures
> corresponding to (1) and (2), but disallow structures corresponding
> to (3)?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Regards to everyone,
> Whitney
>
>
> --
> ******************************
> "Each year, 26,000 people are killed or mutilated by landmines of
> which 8,000 are children." -- The Canadian Landmine Foundation
> To help eradicate landmines, check out http://www.clearlandmines.com/.
> ******************************
> Whitney Anne Postman
> Graduate Student, Ph.D. Candidate
> Fields of Linguistics and Cognitive Studies, Southeast Asia Program
> campus address: Morrill Hall, Dept. of Linguistics, Ithaca N.Y. 14853-4701
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/wap2/
>
>
>