Relative clauses -- TOPIC or FOCUS?

[Joan Bresnan]

The idea that the relativized element in a relative clause is a topic
(or "theme") of that clause was proposed by Kuno, Chiba, and Takizala.
Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) referred to work by those authors for their
analysis of Chichewa.  In English, the difference shows up in the
contrasts like the following:

  Who is there being interviewed? (Question ok with existential.)
  #Someone who there is being interviewed... (Relative not ok with
      existential.)

(Chichewa provides much more clear, morphologically marked evidence.)

Bresnan and Mchombo clarified that the relative TOP was internal to
the relative clause, not a topic of the higher clause within which the
relative construction has some function.  For example, we pointed out
that a relative element could modify a focussed head, as in cleft
constructions:

   It's JOHN who Bill saw.

Within the relative clause modifying the cleft head, the relative
pronoun retains its "thematic" or "topical" status:

   Cf. ??It's JOHN who there is being interviewed.

Aaron Broadwell's interesting notes from Mayan suggest that the
relative verb in actor voice might be specifying FOCUS of the head
WITHIN THE MATRIX (HIGHER) CLAUSE.  This would imply a job for
constructive morphology (inside-out fn application).  Within the
relative clause, the relative element itself could still be "topical"
or a "theme" in accordance with the previous work mentioned.

Joan

> That suggests to me that the head of the relative clause has the discourse
> role FOCUS, and not TOPIC.
...

> Do people think that the head might be TOPIC in some lgs and FOCUS in others?
>