Extraposed relative clauses

[Roger Levy]

A note on the examples below:

Stefan Knoob <stefanknoob at HOTMAIL.COM> writes:

> In this context, you might consider the following type of Korean and
> Japanese data.
> Both Korean and Japanese don't have relative clauses in a narrow sense.
> Instead they use what is for Korean usually called a "modifier clause" which
> always occur before the noun.
...
> Interestingly, these also can have intervening material as long as it also
> modifies the noun
>
> Korean
> chayk-ul sa-n ku salam
> book-OBJ buys-PREN.PERF that person
>
> chayk-ul sa-n Cinhuy tongsayng
> book-OBJ buys-PREN.PERF Chinhee younger.sibling
> Chinhee's younger sibling who had bought a book
>
> namca chinkwu-lul kitali-nun yeppun akassi-tul
> man friend-OBJ waits-PREN.PROGR is.pretty-PREN.PERF young.woman-PLUR
> 'pretty girls waiting for their boyfriends'
>
> Japanese
> hon-o kat-ta hito
> book-OBJ buys-PERF that person
>
> hon-o kat-ta Hanako-no imooto
> book-OBJ buys-PERF Hanako-POSS younger.sister
> Hanako's younger sister who had bought a book
>
> karesi-o mat-teiru kawaii onna-no hito
> boyfriend-OBJ waits-PROGR is.cute-PRES woman-POSS person
> 'pretty girls waiting for their boyfriends'

I'm afraid I left this vague in my original post; by my definition, I
don't consider these as examples of extraposed RCs, because the RC and
the noun are not separated by any material that is NOT part of the
noun phrase (or part of the DP, for those inclined to think of DPs as
above NPs).  RCs can be separated from their nouns in English, as
well (examples from the Brown corpus):

  the deeds of valor that have been done in its name

  a military showdown with the West which they could not win

These examples I do not consider extraposition for the same reason.

Roger