acl:relcl: adnominal relative clause modifier

** UNDER REVISION **

This document presents detailed guidelines for relative clauses and clefts in English. It is a product of extensive deliberations among the UD Core Group, but is meant to apply to other languages only to the extent that constructions pattern similarly to English. Crosslinguistically, there is considerable variation in relative constructions and related phenomena; work on a separate typologically-oriented document is underway.

A relative clause (RC) is a clause modifying some head (typically a noun) that is understood to fulfill some grammatical role in the RC. The head is said to be “extracted” from the RC.

Most RCs are adnominal, hence the relation acl:relcl. Adverbial RCs attach as advcl:relcl, as discussed below.

RCs are usually finite (people who live in glass houses), but may also be infinitival (I found a house in which to live, I found a house (for my mother) to live in). Gerund-participial and past-participial clauses (people living in glass houses, students given high marks) are never considered relative clauses in the approach described here.

In the Basic Dependencies representation, the main predicate of the RC attaches to the head as acl:relcl. This is shown in the example on the left.

In the Enhanced Dependencies layer, there is an additional dependency in the opposite direction to indicate the role from which the head was “extracted”. This is shown on the right.

The RC may begin with a relativizer (that, which, who, or another WH-word); in some contexts (e.g., object relativization) the relativizer is optional. See PronType=Rel. The relativizer can be understood as an anaphor whose antecedent is the head of the relative clause.

Basic UD (left) analyzes the relativizer, if present, as filling a role in the RC. Specifically:

• Pronominal relativizers (that, which, who, what, etc.) fill roles such as subject, object, or oblique.¹
• WH-adverb relativizers (where, when, why, how, etc.) attach as advmod within the RC.
• The possessive pronominal relativizer whose may occur within a subject, object, or oblique phrase.

In the Enhanced Dependencies layer (right), the relativizer instead attaches to its antecedent via the ref relation (as the antecedent is directly connected to a role in the RC).

A relative clause with no relativizer, like (1), is called a reduced relative clause. One with a relativizer, like (3), is called a nonreduced relative clause.

Basic UD is shown for the rest of the examples below.

Notable Properties

Relativization can create unbounded dependency—an element can be extracted from several levels of embedding:

I saw the book which you pretended to think was boring
acl:relcl(book, pretended)
nsubj(boring, which)
xcomp(pretended, think)
ccomp(think, boring)

Semantically, relative clauses may be specifying/restrictive (helping to narrow a set of referents), or ascriptive/nonrestrictive (adding detail about a referent that has already been identified):

• Specifying
  • I rented the movie which you bought (as opposed to some other one).
• Ascriptive
  • I introduced myself to John, who promptly forgot my name.
  • I rented the movie, which you bought (as opposed to renting).
  • I tried to explain myself – which was a bad idea. [antecedent is a clause]

The specifying/ascriptive distinction does not affect the UD analysis.

Adverbial Relative Clauses

On occasion, a relative clause attaches not as a noun modifier but as a clause modifier, and therefore the appropriate relation is advcl:relcl. One such case is clausal anaphora, where the antecedent is a clause:

I tried to explain myself – which was a bad idea
advcl:relcl(tried, idea)
nsubj(idea, which)

This relation can also be seen in free relatives and it-clefts.

Predicate Ellipsis in the Relative Clause

A pronominal relativizer may stand for a predicate in a relative clause:

If we lose ( which/PRON we probably will ) , I'm blaming you.
advcl(blaming, lose)
advcl:relcl(lose, which)
nsubj(which, we-6)
advmod(which, probably)
aux(which, will)

Preposition Stranding

A preposition may be left “stranded” in the relative clause (its object corresponding to the head of the RC):

• The house (that) you said you wanted to live in is for sale.
  • Non-RC paraphrase: The house is on sale; you said you wanted to live in that house.

The Basic UD analysis depends on whether it is a reduced or nonreduced RC. In a nonreduced RC, the relativizer is available to fill a role in the RC, and thus gets marked with the preposition (even if this contributes to the nonprojectivity of the tree):

the house that you said you wanted to live in
acl:relcl(house, said)
ccomp(said, wanted)
xcomp(wanted, live)
obl(live, that)
case(that, in)

In a reduced RC, however, there is no nominal to fill the role in the RC, so the preposition gets promoted to the head of the phrase (similar to the treatment of Ellipsis). If the stranded preposition belongs to a copular predicate, it assumes the role of that predicate:

the house you said you wanted to live in
acl:relcl(house, said)
ccomp(said, wanted)
xcomp(wanted, live)
obl(live, in)

the problem the question is about
acl:relcl(problem, about)
nsubj(about, question)
cop(about, is)

The same treatment applies to a preposition stranded in a free relative.

In the Enhanced Dependencies representation, the stranded preposition attaches to the relativized element unless the preposition has been promoted to function as the predicate.

Prepositional Relatives

As an alternative to stranding, the preposition may occur before the relativizer (for some relativizers, particularly which, whom, and whose):

the house in which you live
acl:relcl(house, live)
obl(live, which)
case(which, in)

the crown from where the jewels were stolen
acl:relcl(crown, stolen)
obl(stolen, where)
case(where, from)

the king from whom the jewels were stolen
acl:relcl(king, stolen)
obl(stolen, whom)
case(whom, from)

the king from whose crown we stole the jewels
acl:relcl(king, stole)
obl(stole, crown)
case(crown, from)
nmod:poss(crown, whose)

the king bequeathed a crown , the jewels of which were stolen
acl:relcl(crown, stolen)
nmod(jewels, which)
case(which, of)
nsubj:pass(stolen, jewels)

Infinitival Relatives

Relative clauses may be infinitival, in which case they do not generally have a relativizer.

I found a bagel to eat
acl:relcl(bagel, eat)

I have a suggestion to make
acl:relcl(suggestion, make)

I found someone to work on Saturdays
acl:relcl(someone, work)

I found a house (for my mother) to live in
acl:relcl(house, live)
obl(live, in)

Infinitival prepositional relatives with a relativizer are possible as an alternative to stranding:

I found a house in which to live
acl:relcl(house, live)
obl(live, which)
case(which, in)

Note that an adnominal infinitival clause is only a relative clause if the head noun is understood to double as a dependent of the subordinate clause. In the above examples, the bagel is the thing eaten (which corresponds to an obj in enhanced dependencies); someone is the person assigned to work (the enhanced nsubj); and so on.

By contrast, the following are plain acl because suggestion and ability are not understood as playing any role in the infinitival clause:

your suggestion to eat early
acl(suggestion, eat)

your ability to navigate in the dark
acl(ability, navigate)

Some infinitivals are ambiguous between two plausible readings. A proposal to speed up the meeting can be construed as a proposal of speeding up the meeting, i.e. speeding up is the content of the proposal (acl); or the proposal can be understood to consist of some method of saving time, in which case the proposal is construed as speeding up the meeting—a subject relative interpretation (acl:relcl).

With nouns like proposal, the of-paraphrase test can be used as a diagnostic for the non-relative interpretation. Another diagnostic is substituting something, somewhere, some way(?), or similar, which favors the relative clause interpretation:²

TODO: Currently acl has “a simple way to get my discount”. Is this an adjunct relative or a complement of “way”? It can be paraphrased as “way of getting my discount”. Similarly: “reason to leave”/”reason for leaving”.

something to speed up the meeting
acl:relcl(something, speed)

RCs versus Non-relative Modifier Clauses

When, where, why, and how frequently introduce adverbial clauses (advcl). They can also introduce non-relative adnominal modifier clauses (acl) similarly providing time/place/manner information:

When you leave , be sure to let me know .
advmod(leave, When)
advcl(sure, leave)

The headlines when Nixon resigned were legendary .
advmod(resigned, when)
acl(headlines, resigned)

However, it should be considered a relative construction if the WH-adverb can be paraphrased by in which or similar, or if the head noun reifies the kind of relation (the time when, the place where, the reason why).

the time when the pizza exploded
acl:relcl(time, exploded)
advmod(exploded, when)

Some phrases are ambiguous. The ceremony where we became citizens can be interpreted as an RC if the bestowal of citizenship happened during the ceremony (in which interpretation,³ thus acl:relcl). In that interpretation, the ceremony serves as the setting for the bestowal of citizenship. But there is another interpretation, in which the ceremony need not be a naturalization ceremony: if where we became citizens helps identify the place of a separate ceremony, we treat this as a free relative attaching to the nominal as advmod, akin to here. Finally, for the ceremony when we became citizens, we take when we became citizens to be locating the ceremony in time, designated with acl (but other readings might be possible). Fronting the WH-clause in a matrix clause may help distinguish the readings: Where/when we became citizens, there was a nice ceremony suggests the WH-clause is providing the place or time setting for the ceremony, not the reverse.

Testing whether WH-adverb is a Relativizer

Given that modifier clauses marked with when or where can be hard to classify as relative or non-relative,⁴ we use the following heuristics:

1. A where-clause that modifies a reference to (broadly speaking) a place/situation/arrangement, or a when-clause that modifies a reference to a time, is a relative clause.

   • the hole where the ground caved in
   • I heard it on [a show where members of the administration often appear as guests]
   • I heard it on [one of the Sunday shows, where it is customary to have interviews with administration spokespeople]
   • the date when I’ll be back from my trip
   • please schedule it on [the 26th, when I’ll be back from my trip]

   An adnominal where-clause that can be readily paraphrased with in which or similar is also considered a relative clause:

   • a situation where/in which nobody wins
   • a journey where/on which you get to experience different cultures

2. If it is a where-clause and where has a locative meaning, treat it as a free relative.

   • Where I had lunch yesterday, it was very windy.
   • Where I was __ yesterday, it was very windy.
   • Where I came from __, it was very windy.

3. Otherwise, default to the non-relative analysis (acl or advcl). Here the adverb is functioning as neither interrogative nor relative.

   • Where you might be tempted to fold, I am willing to call the bet. (non-locative)
   • When Nixon resigned, the disruption was substantial.
   • Nobody had anticipated [the disruption when Nixon resigned]
   • the unemployment rate when Biden came into office

Free Relatives

Free relatives are noun phrases containing a relative clause modifying a WH-phrase. There is no separate relativizer in the RC; it is “fused” with the head (thus these constructions are also known as fused relatives).

I 'll have whatever/PRON she 's having .
obj(have, whatever)
acl:relcl(whatever, having)

You can go where/ADV you want and eat what you want .
advmod(go, where)
advcl:relcl(where, want-6)
obj(eat, what)
acl:relcl(what, want-11)

What/DET money we have left will go to charity
det(money, What)
acl:relcl(money, have)
nsubj(go, money)

I don't like how/ADV it looks (CGEL p. 1077)
obj(like, how)
advcl:relcl(how, looks)

We adopt a simple rule that advcl:relcl (rather than acl:relcl) applies to all free relatives headed by a WH-adverb (where, when, why, or how).

Free Relatives versus Interrogative/Exclamative Complement Clauses

Free relatives are subtly different from interrogative clauses, where the WH-word making it interrogative is inside the clause. Verbs such as wonder, know, and tell license interrogative complement clauses (including ones beginning with whether). With verbs like know and tell that license either a complement clauses or a direct object, disambiguating between the two types of WH-complements can be difficult.

According to CGEL (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, pp. 1070–1079), in contrast to interrogative clauses, free relatives

• are always finite;
• are never marked by whether;
• generally permit WH-ever heads (Eat what(ever) you want);
• cannot be reduced with a non-ever head, even given sufficient context
  • Free relative: He bought what I was selling → *I was selling something (he bought what!).
  • cf. interrogative: He wondered what I was selling → I was selling something (he wondered what!).;
• never license else after a non-ever head (*He bought what else I was selling) [this test is from SIEG, Huddleston et al. 2021, p. 291].

An example where they correspond to clearly distinct readings is I asked what he asked:

• Free relative reading: ‘I asked that thing that he asked (the same question that he asked)’
• Interrogative reading: ‘I asked about the content of his question (I know he asked something but I don’t know what)’

A subtler case is Alice doesn’t know what Kim said (the interrogative reading, ‘Alice doesn’t know what the content of Kim’s statement was’, is more likely, but the free relative reading ‘Alice isn’t familiar with the set of facts that Kim shared’ is also possible). In general, with predicates of cognition and communication that permit clausal complements, we take the interrogative interpretation to be the default reading if both readings are plausible.

The following contain interrogative complement clauses, not free relatives, and thus use ccomp:

I need to know who you are planning to leave with .
obl(leave, who)
case(who, with)
ccomp(know, leave)

I don't know where he lives , who he is , how old he is , how much money he has , what car he drives , to whom he is married , whether he has kids , or why he is here .
ccomp(know, lives)
advmod(lives, where)
conj(lives, who)
nsubj(who, he-9)
cop(who, is-10)
conj(lives, old)
advmod(old, how-12)
cop(old, is-15)
conj(lives, has-21)
advmod(much, how-17)
amod(money, much)
obj(has, money)
conj(lives, drives)
nsubj(drives, car)
det(car, what)
conj(lives, married)
obl(married, whom)
case(whom, to)
conj(lives, has-36)
mark(has-36, whether)
conj(lives, here)
advmod(here, why)

Interrogative WH-clauses can also function as clause adjuncts:

Whether you like it or not , it works .
mark(like, Whether)
conj(like, not)
advcl(works, like)

Whatever it is , I 'm against it !
advcl(against, Whatever)
nsubj(Whatever, it)
cop(Whatever, is)

Whatever your reasons , I disagree .
advcl(disagree, Whatever)
nsubj(Whatever, reasons)

See No matter and similar below.

Exclamative clauses beginning with how or what may also function as complements:

• I know/*wonder what a jerk he is!

  I know what a jerk he is !
  ccomp(know, jerk)
  det:predet(jerk, what)
  det(jerk, a)
  nsubj(jerk, he)
  cop(jerk, is)
  

• I love how well everyone behaved.

  I love how well everyone behaved .
  ccomp(love, behaved)
  advmod(behaved, well)
  advmod(well, how)
  

• I noticed how big a car he has. (‘I noticed that he has a remarkably big car.’)

  I noticed how big a car he has .
  ccomp(noticed, has)
  obj(has, car)
  amod(car, big)
  advmod(big, how)
  

☞ TODO: With the exclamative clause analysis these results with BE as the RC predicate should be revisited.

☞ TODO: plain acl for a WH-clause: is this limited to interrogative and exclamative complements of nouns, and non-RC adjuncts (“press conferences when the US forces were already inside Baghdad”)? http://match.grew.fr/?corpus=UD_English-EWT@dev&custom=61c1f3622bda6

Cyclic cases

In some cases, promotion is required to avoid a cycle. For example, in the sentence I want to sample whatever dish this is, whatever dish this is is a free relative with a copular embedded clause. The word dish cannot simultaneously be treated as the copular predicate and the head of the free relative (because it cannot be an acl:relcl dependent on itself), so the auxiliary is promoted to the head of the embedded clause and assigned the acl:relcl relation.

I want to sample whatever dish this is .
obj(sample, dish)
det(dish, whatever)
acl:relcl(dish, is)
nsubj(is, this)

Clefts

Cleft constructions pertain to the information packaging of a clause. They have the function of foregrounding some material relative to the rest of the clause.

Pseudoclefts

A free relative can be used within a copular construction to background some material relative to a foregrounded element. John is foregrounded in the following two variants of the pseudocleft construction:

-ROOT- John is who we want to help .
root(-ROOT-, who)
nsubj(who, John)
acl:relcl(who, want)
cop(who, is)

-ROOT- Who we want to help is John .
root(-ROOT-, John)
nsubj(John, Who)
acl:relcl(Who, want)
cop(John, is)

The following show the pseudocleft construction being used to foreground a clause:

-ROOT- What John did was to play tennis .
mark(play, to)
cop(play, was)
nsubj:outer(play, What)
acl:relcl(What, did)

-ROOT- What the committee asked is whether the plan worked .
nsubj:outer(worked, What)
acl:relcl(What, asked)
cop(worked, is)
mark(worked, whether)
nsubj(worked, plan)
root(-ROOT-, worked)

It-clefts

The it-cleft construction serves a similar purpose—foregrounding one element (with expletive it plus copula). The remainder of the sentence is a standard (not free⁵) relative clause that elaborates on the copular predication. CGEL (p. 416) describes it as a relative clause functioning as a dependent of the main clause (versus the canonical function of a relative clause as dependent within a nominal phrase). In UD terms, the relative clause is adverbial; we therefore use advcl:relcl:

-ROOT- It 's John who we want to help .
expl(John, It)
cop(John, 's)
root(-ROOT-, John)
advcl:relcl(John, want)
xcomp(want, help)
obj(help, who)

-ROOT- It was with John that/PRON I went to the movies .
expl(John, It)
cop(John, was)
root(-ROOT-, John)
case(John, with)
advcl:relcl(John, went)
obl(went, that)

-ROOT- Was it really that/SCONJ it was raining that/PRON bothered you ?
root(-ROOT-, raining)
expl(raining, it-3)
cop(raining, Was)
advmod(raining, really)
mark(raining, that-5)
expl(raining, it-6)
aux(raining, was)
advcl:relcl(raining, bothered)
nsubj(bothered, that-9)
obj(bothered, you)

-ROOT- It 's that/SCONJ he 's so self-satisfied that/PRON I find offputting . (CGEL p. 1418)
root(-ROOT-, self-satisfied)
expl(self-satisfied, It)
mark(self-satisfied, that-4)
nsubj(self-satisfied, he)
cop(self-satisfied, 's-6)
cop(self-satisfied, 's-3)
advcl:relcl(self-satisfied, find)
obj(find, that-9)
xcomp(find, offputting)

Note that relativizer that receives the PRON tag, but its antecedent may be a wide variety of constituent types. In (50), we are forced to use obl for the attachment of the relativizer even though it is not marked by a preposition.

The it is nonreferential, so we use expl (though the applicability of the term “expletive” here is controversial).

It-clefts versus Extraposition

It-clefts may resemble extraposition. It is clear that we should decline is an example of extraposition, discussed at expl: the heavy clausal subject that we should decline is postponed to the end of the sentence, with expletive it as placeholder in the usual subject position. By contrast, the it-clefts described above involve a relative clause (which may start with relativizer that, or another relativizer like who or which, or no relativizer at all).

According to Calude (2008, pp. 20-21), the key test is that, for extraposition, it can be replaced by the delayed clause. For it-clefts, this yields an ungrammatical result:

• EXTRAPOSITION: It is clear that we should decline → That we should decline is clear
• IT-CLEFT: It is John that we want to help → *That we want to help is John
  • Additionally, the acceptability in this context of replacing that with who(m) shows that it is a relativizer, not a complementizer.
• IT-CLEFT: It was with John that I went to the movies → *That I went to the movies was with John
• IT-CLEFT: Was it really that it was raining that bothered you? → *Was that bothered you really that it was raining?
• EXTRAPOSITION: Did it bother you that it was raining? → Did that it was raining bother you?

  Did it bother you that it was raining ?
  aux(bother, Did)
  expl(bother, it-2)
  obj(bother, you)
  csubj(bother, raining)
  mark(raining, that)
  expl(raining, it-6)
  aux(raining, was)
  

• IT-CLEFT: It is that he’s so self-satisfied that I find offputting → *That I find offputting is that he’s so self-satisfied
• EXTRAPOSITION: I find it offputting that he’s so self-satisfied → I find that he’s so self-satisfied offputting

  I find it offputting that he 's so self-satisfied
  expl(find, it)
  nsubj(find, I)
  xcomp(find, offputting)
  ccomp(find, self-satisfied)
  mark(self-satisfied, that)
  

No matter and similar

The phrase no matter is analyzed as taking a obj complement in, e.g., no matter the cost. When it takes free relative object, that object is also analyzed according to the rules above.

No matter what progress we make as individuals, we will never achieve real health until ...
det(matter, No)
obl:npmod(achieve, matter)
obj(matter, progress)
det(progress, what)
acl:relcl(progress, make)

☞ TODO: or should it be advmod(matter, no), as in EWT?

☞ TODO: A particular non-relative construction in which WH-ever forms occur (these are interrogative clauses functioning as adjuncts): Whatever the reasons behind the duel (were), he was convinced of his impending death (cf. I’m doing this whether you like it or not.; see CGEL pp. 985-986)

Additional Examples

• She was telling me how wrong I was about how another dress that I loved compared to one of her dresses. issue
• if we lose Dean (which we will if we don’t pay 65k + 10k) issue

© 2014–2024 Universal Dependencies contributors. Site powered by Annodoc and brat