Proceedings of CLS 51 (2015), 149-163
c Chicago Linguistic Society 2016. All rights reserved.

149

The structure and interpretation of non-restrictive relatives:
Evidence from relative pronoun pied-piping
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine and Hadas Kotek
National University of Singapore and McGill University

1 Introduction
English is one of many languages in which relative clauses (RC) can be constructedusing wh-words as relative pronouns. The relative pronoun originates lower in theclause and A-moves to the edge of the RC. This movement can pied-pipe othermaterial with it, resulting in relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP):(1)

Non-restrictive relative with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP):
Mary, [RC [RPPP whose talk] I saw
at CLS], is clearly brilliant.

In this paper, we investigate the structure and interpretation of English nonrestrictive relative clauses, also often called appositive relatives and sometimes
supplemental relatives. We propose that in non-restrictive relatives, relative pronouns are interpreted in situ within the pied-piped constituent at LF, using RoothHamblin alternative computation( Hamblin 1973, Rooth 1985, 1992, a.o). Evidence
comes from the presence of intervention effects in RPPP; intervention effects (Beck2006, Sauerland & Heck 2003, a.o.) can be used to diagnose regions of alternative computation (see Kotek & Erlewine to appear, Erlewine & Kotek 2014). The
proposal here has the consequence that non-restrictive relatives are fundamentally
proposition-denoting (Del Gobbo 2007) in contrast to restrictive relatives which areproperty-denoting.
Our proposal helps explain two differences between restrictive and non-restrictive RCs in English. First, non-restrictive relatives must use relative pronouns
whereas restrictive relatives also have a that/∅ complementizer option. The relative
pronoun strategy must be used in non-restrictive relatives to arrive at the propositional denotation. Second, RPPP in non-restrictive relatives can be substantiallylarger than in restrictive relatives. This is due to the semantics of Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation, used to interpret relative pronouns in non-restrictive relatives, which is insensitive to syntactic barriers such as islands, although it is susceptible to intervention effects.

2 Setting the stage
In this section we discuss the desired semantics for relative clauses. We begin bylooking at restrictive relative clauses in section 2.1, which motivates the idea that
RCs are property-denoting. In section 2.2 we discuss the complications introduced
by relative pronoun pied-piping and three different interpretational options of RPPP.
Then in section 2.3 we discuss the interpretation of non-restrictive relatives.

150

M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE AND H ADAS KOTEK

2.1 Interpreting restrictive relative clauses
In approaching the semantics of relative clauses, it is instructive to first look at
restrictive relative clauses, where their semantic contribution has been well-studied
and is quite clear. Consider for example the relative clause in (2) below.
(2)

Restrictive relative clause with relative pronoun:
Every phonologist [RC who I met
at CLS] gave a great talk.

Following Quine (1960), Partee (1973), and much subsequent work, the restrictorof every in (2) is interpreted as the set of individuals satisfying both phonologist andthe predicate “λx . I met x at CLS.” The relative clause acts to restrict the domainthat the quantifier every quantifies over.
We arrive at the interpretation of the relative clause by interpreting the Amovement of the relative pronoun (Chomsky 1977) as λ-abstraction.1 Following
the presentation in Heim & Kratzer (1998), the trace position of movement is interpreted as a variable, x, and a λ-binder below the target of movement abstracts overthis argument (3).
(3)

Deriving and interpreting the relative clause:
RC
RC
who

TP
I met t at CLS

→

who

λx

TP
I met x at CLS

For the purposes of this illustration, assume that the relative pronoun itself does
not contribute semantically, as in the discussion in Heim & Kratzer (1998, p. 186).
This results in the desired denotation for the relative clause, JRCK = “λx . I met
x at CLS.” We can say that the semantics of the RC itself is property-denoting.
As this is a restrictive relative, this property modifies the head noun phonologist
intersectively, resulting in the desired restriction of the domain of quantification.
2.2 The problem of pied-piping
This procedure for interpreting the relative clause as a derived property is complicated by pied-piping. Consider the relative clause in (4) below.
(4)

Restrictive relative with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP):
Every phonologist [RC [RPPP whose talk] I saw
at CLS] is clearly brilliant.

Following the discussion above, we want the relative clause in (4) to denote theproperty “λx . I saw x’s talk at CLS.” It’s clear that the procedure from the previous
section, illustrated in (3) above, is insufficient to derive this meaning. Interpretingthe movement of the RPPP using λ-abstraction yields the derived predicate “λx . I
saw x at CLS” (5). The semantic contribution of the pied-piped material is missing.
1

Here we abstract away from the question of whether or not any of the nominal material outside of the relative clause, such as the head noun (here, phonologist), originated within the relative
clause. See Sauerland (1998), Bhatt (2002), Hulsey & Sauerland (2006) and references therein for
discussion.

T HE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NON - RESTRICTIVE RELATIVES

(5)

151

A failed attempt at interpreting a relative clause with RPPP:
RC
RC
RPPP

TP

whose talkI saw t at CLS→

RPPP
whose talkλx

TP

I saw x at CLS

There are at least three possible approaches to solving this problem. The first is
to covertly move the relative pronoun out of the RPPP.2 This approach is illustrated
in (6). Covert movement is indicated by dashed arrows here.
(6)

Approach 1: covertly move the relative pronoun out of the RPPP
a. LF: [RC who λy [[RPPP y’s talk] λx . I saw x at CLS]]
b. JRCK = λy . (λx . I saw x at CLS) (y’s talk)= λy . I saw y’s talk at CLS

We can interpret the covert movement step as another instance of λ-abstraction.
The denotation of the RPPP constituent, “y’s talk,” becomes the argument for thepredicate derived by the overt RPPP-movement step, and is bound above by λy.
Again assuming that the relative pronoun (who, in gray) itself does not contributeinterpretationally, we yield the desired denotation for the relative clause in (6b).
The second approach is to interpret the RPPP constituent, modulo the relative
pronoun itself, down in the base position of movement, within the RC. That is,although the pied-piped material is pronounced high, in the LF representation it isinterpreted low with λ-abstraction over just the relative pronoun’s position.3 The
differing PF and LF representations under this view are illustrated in (7):(7)

Approach 2: RPPP low at LF, abstract over just the relative pronoun
a. PF: [RC [RPPP whose talk] I saw t at CLS]
b. LF: [RC who λx . I saw [RPPP x’s talk] at CLS]

Looking at the LF representation, we see that the relative clause can be straightforwardly interpreted as the intended property “λx . I saw x’s talk at CLS.”
One argument against the idea that the relative pronoun is separated from therest of the RPPP via movement comes from island diagnostics. Example (8b), basedon the baseline in (8a), shows that the relative pronoun can be inside an island,
inside RPPP. This evidence is immediately problematic for Approach 1, where therelative pronoun must move out of RPPP. It is also problematic for Approach 2,
2
The same semantic effect can be derived by other approaches which relate the surface positionof the relative pronoun within the RPPP and the edge of the RC. This could, for example, be themovement of the head noun (here, phonologist) from the position of who to its surface position, as
in Kayne (1994).
3
We can think of this discrepancy between the PF and LF representations as the result of covertly
reconstructing much of the RPPP at LF or as an indication that the movement of the pied-pipedmaterial (somehow) only occurs at PF.

152

M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE AND H ADAS KOTEK

assuming that interpretation of RPPP in the base position, abstracting over just therelative pronoun position, requires a movement step.
(8)

The relative pronoun can be inside an island, inside RPPP:
a. This portrait, [RC [RPPP the background of which] is quite stunning], soldfor a million dollars at auction.
b. This portrait, [RC [RPPP the background [RC that was chosen for which]]
is quite stunning], sold for a million dollars at auction.

The third approach is to interpret the relative pronoun in situ within the RPPP,
using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation, a different mode of semantic composition. Such an approach is briefly discussed but not ultimately adopted in Sternefeld (2001) and Sauerland & Heck (2003). We will introduce this approach by
discussing its use in the interpretation of wh-in situ questions such as the Korean
example in (9):(9)

Korean wh-in situ:
Minsu-nun nuku-lûl po-ass-ni?
Minsu-TOP who-ACC see-PAST-Q‘Who did Minsu see?’Hamblin (1973) proposes a mechanism for interpreting wh-words in situ—that
is, without overt or covert movement. This procedure is illustrated for (an English
word order version of) example (9) in (10) below.4 Here we follow Beck’s (2006)
presentation which uses Rooth’s (1992) multidimensional semantics and notation:a set of alternatives for each node in the tree can be computed using the denotation
function J·Kf whereas ordinary semantic values are computed with J·Ko . Interrogative elements have only alternative-semantic values defined.
(10) Interpreting (9a), presented as wh-in situ English:
a. [CP CQ [TP Minsu saw who]]b. JwhoKf = {John, Mary, Bill,...}
c. JTPKf = {Minsu saw John, Minsu saw Mary, Minsu saw Bill,...}

The wh-word introduces the set of corresponding possible short answers—in thiscase, animate individuals—as the alternative-semantic value of JwhoKf . Each ofthese individual values composes pointwise with the verb saw and then with thesubject Minsu to yield the alternatives in JTPKf . These alternatives correspond topossible answers to the question and are interpreted by C which contributes thequestion force.
We will refer to this mechanism as Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation after
Rooth (1985) and Hamblin (1973) and we indicate regions where alternatives arecomputed using a squiggly arrow.
4
We assume here that Korean in situ wh-words are indeed interpreted in situ at LF (Beck, 2006,a.o.). The facts for wh-in situ in English multiple wh-questions, however, are more complicated. See
Pesetsky (2000), Beck (2006), Kotek (2015) for discussion.

T HE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NON - RESTRICTIVE RELATIVES

153

This process of Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation can also be used to interpret interrogative wh-words inside pied-piped constituents (Cable 2007, Kotek& Erlewine to appear). Consider the structure in (11) below, based on an example
sentence from Cable (2007).
(11) Interpreting pied-piping using both movement and alternatives:
a. [TP [pied-piping A picture of which president] λx . does Jim own x]?
alternative computation(b. JTPKf =Jim owns a picture of Roosevelt,
Jim owns a picture of Kennedy,
Jim owns a picture of Obama,...

movement)

The introduction of alternatives at which leads to the pied-piped constituent having
an alternative-semantic denotation of a set of pictures of different presidents. This
composes with the rest of the question, which is a predicate derived by interpretingthe movement chain as λ-abstraction. Composing pointwise, this results in thealternative-semantic denotation JTPKf in (11b), corresponding to the desired set of
possible answers. In this way, the interrogative wh-word can be interpreted in situ
within the pied-piped constituent, with the movement step interpreted in the normal
fashion.
This approach to interpreting wh-words using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation has also been extended to non-interrogative (specifically, quantificational)
uses of wh-words in work such as Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002). Returning now to
the interpretation of relative clauses, the third approach to the problem of relative
pronoun pied-piping would then be to use this same method of interpreting the relative pronoun in situ using alternative computation, within RPPP, and combining itwith λ-abstraction for the overt movement of RPPP:(12) Approach 3: interpret using both movement and alternatives[RC [RPPP whose talk] λx . I saw x at CLS]
alt. computation

movement

An immediate advantage of this approach is that it is compatible with the island
data presented in (8). Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation, unlike movement, is
not sensitive to syntactic islands (Rooth 1985).
In section 3, we will present a diagnostic which is able to detect regions ofRooth-Hamblin alternative computation. This diagnostic shows that Approach 3—with the relative pronoun interpreted in situ within the pied-piped constituent—isultimately correct for non-restrictive relatives. This will, however, bring with itits own complication; specifically, there is not a straightforward way to use this insitu mode of composition to derive a property-denotation for the relative clause in(12). We will propose that the key to solving this puzzle is the unique semantics of
non-restrictive relatives themselves, to which we now turn.
2.3 Interpreting non-restrictive relative clauses
In this section we discuss the semantics of non-restrictive relatives, which will be
the focus of this paper. Although non-restrictive relatives are superficially similar to154

M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE AND H ADAS KOTEK

their restrictive counterparts, there are a number of significant differences of note.
The defining difference is of course that non-restrictive relatives do not have thefunction of restricting a domain of quantification; instead, they simply introduce
additional information about the antecedent described.
The semantic contribution of non-restrictive RCs has traditionally been compared to that of an independent, possibly conjoined clause (Quine 1960, Ross 1967,
Taglicht 1972, Thorne 1972, Emonds 1979, McCawley 1981, Demirdache 1991,
de Vries 2006, a.o.) as in (13) below. More recently, Potts (2005, 2013) formallydescribes non-restrictive RCs—as well as other supplementals such as nominal
appositives—as projective (always wide scope) and not-at-issue.
(13) The semantic contribution of a non-restrictive relative, paraphrased:
Mary, [RC who I met
at CLS], gave a great presentation.
≈ Mary gave a great presentation. (And) I met Mary at CLS.
What is important here for our purposes is that the meaning introduced by the
non-restrictive relative clause is a proposition, in this case I met Mary at CLS. We
can intuitively break this proposition up into two parts: Mary, the referent being
described, and the property “λx . I met x at CLS” which must be true of Mary.
Given the semantics independently necessary for restrictive relatives (§2.1), thenull hypothesis would be to say that there is a uniform, property-denoting semantics
for restrictive and non-restrictive RCs:
(14) The null hypothesis: a uniform property-denoting semantics for RCs
a. Core, shared meaning:
J[RC who I met at CLS]K = λx . I met x at CLS
propertyb. Restrictive use:
Jphonologist RCK = JphonologistK ∩ JRCK= λx . x is a phonologist and I met x at CLS
c. Non-restrictive use:
projects a not-at-issue proposition: JRCK(antecedentRC )where antecedentRC is the referent described
The alternative would be that the entire proposition—in this case I met Maryat CLS—is built directly, without computing the property “λx . I met x at CLS”
along the way. Clearly the null hypothesis is advantageous from the point of view ofparsimony. In the following section we will build an argument that, in fact, the null
hypothesis in (14) is incorrect and instead non-restrictive relatives are built directly
and that they are inherently proposition-denoting (see also Del Gobbo 2007).
(15) The alternative: non-restrictive RCs are proposition-denoting• Non-restrictive RCs denote an entire proposition and are computed
directly without first computing the corresponding property.
• This proposition is then projected as a not-at-issue meaning.
• There is no core meaning shared between corresponding restrictive
and non-restrictive RCs.

T HE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NON - RESTRICTIVE RELATIVES

155

3 Evidence from intervention effects
In this section we investigate the structure and interpretation of RPPP in nonrestrictive RCs. We argue that they are proposition-denoting based on the behavior
of intervention effects in RPPP. Background on intervention effects will be introduced in section 3.1. The new data is presented in 3.2. In section 3.3 we discuss theimplications of this data for the theoretical approaches reviewed in section 2.
3.1 Intervention effects
In section 2.2 above, we discussed three potential solutions to the problem of piedpiping, i.e. how to properly incorporate the semantics of the pied-piped material
when interpreting a relative clause. One of these approaches involved interpreting the relative pronoun in situ using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation, (12).
Here we will introduce so-called intervention effects which we have shown in previous work (Kotek 2014, Kotek & Erlewine to appear, Erlewine & Kotek 2014) canbe used as a diagnostic for regions of Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation.
Intervention effects have traditionally described a phenomenon where the addition of certain operators disrupts the interpretation of in situ wh-words (Beck 2006;
see also Beck 1996, Kim 2002, a.o.). A classic example from Beck & Kim (1997)
is reproduced in (16) below. Korean is generally wh-in situ, as shown in (9) above,
but when the subject above the in situ wh-word is changed to the focus-sensitive
expression ‘only Minsu,’ the question becomes ungrammatical (16a). This problem
can be avoided by scrambling the wh-word over the intervener as in (16b).
(16) Intervention effect in Korean wh-questions:a. * Minsu-man nuku-lûl po-ass-ni?
Minsu-only who-ACC see-PAST-Q
Intended: ‘Who did only [Minsu]F see?’Xb.
Nuku-lûl Minsu-man
po-ass-ni?
who-ACC Minsu-only
see-PAST-Q‘Who did only [Minsu]F see?’(Beck & Kim 1997)

Here we say that ‘only Minsu’ is an intervener; interveners are bolded here.
The intervention effect in example (16a) and its amelioration via scrambling in(16b) motivate the idea that intervention effects only affect regions of alternative
computation, not movement (Beck 2006, Beck & Kim 2006). Informally, interveners interrupt the projection of alternatives (squiggly arrow) before they reach theinterpreting operator—in this case, interrogative C.5(17) Intervention affects alternatives, not movement:a. * [CP C ... intervener ... wh ]b.
5

X

[CP C ... wh intervener ... t ]

(16a)
(16b)

For reasons of space, here we will concentrate on the distribution of intervention effects and beless concerned with the mechanism that causes intervention. See Beck (2006) for one prominentview. Crucially all interveners used for our evidence in section 3.2 are items which have beenpreviously shown to cause intervention in interrogative wh-constructions.

156

M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE AND H ADAS KOTEK

Sauerland & Heck (2003), Cable (2007), and Kotek & Erlewine (to appear)show that intervention effects also occur inside pied-piped constituents triggeredby interrogative wh-movement.
(18) Intervention effect in English pied-piping: (based on Cable 2007, p. 262)
a. X [pied-piping A picture of which president] does Jim own ?
b. * [pied-piping No pictures of which president] does Jim own ?
c. * [pied-piping Few pictures of which president] does Jim own ?
d. * [pied-piping Only PICTURES of which president] does Jim own ?
If an intervener is placed between the wh-word and the edge of the pied-piping
constituent, it results in ungrammaticality. This is explained by the view, introduced
briefly above (11), that interrogative wh-words are interpreted in situ within piedpiping constituents, using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation. The following
schema illustrates this configuration:(19) The pied-piping intervention schema:*[pied-piping ... intervener ... wh ] λx . ... x ...
alt. computation movement

We know that it is specifically this region within the pied-piping that is sensitive
to intervention because different choices of pied-piping size can lead to structures
where the intervener is stranded below. Such questions are grammatical, (20). This
reflects the fact that intervention effects affect Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation, here used to interpret the pied-piping constituent, but not structures that arederived through movement chains and interpreted through λ-abstraction.
(20) Intervention avoided with smaller pied-piping:(Cable 2007)X
a.
[pied-piping Of which president] does Jim own no pictures ?
Xb.
[pied-piping Which president] does Jim own no pictures of ?
3.2 Intervention effects in RPPP
We now turn to an investigation of RPPP in non-restrictive RCs. The minimal pairin (21) shows that the region between the relative pronoun and the edge of RPPP isindeed susceptible to intervention effects.
(21) Intervention effect in RPPP:
I want to try this recipe,a. X [RC [RPPP the ingredients for which] I (already) haveat home].
b. * [RC [RPPP no ingredient(s) for which] I haveat home].
??
c.
[RC [RPPP very few ingredients for which] I haveat home].
??
at home].
d.
[RC [RPPP only [one]F ingredient for which] I haveThis pattern parallels the behavior of material pied-piped with interrogative whwords, reviewed above. The interveners in (21) are known pied-piping interveners,
observed in (18) above and discussed in Kotek & Erlewine (to appear) and Erlewine& Kotek (2014).

T HE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NON - RESTRICTIVE RELATIVES

157

It’s important to note that this effect is not simply due to the use of any quantificational expression inside the RPPP. Other, non-intervening quantifiers do not havethis effect:(22) Non-intervening quantifiers in RPPP:
I want to try this recipe,a. X [RC [RPPP an ingredient for which] I’m missing ].
b. X [RC [RPPP three ingredients for which] I (already) havec. X [RC [RPPP many ingredients for which] I (already) have(cf 21)

at home].
at home].

It is also not the case that the ungrammatical examples in (21) express particularly strange meanings. Take example (21b) above. If a smaller constituent ischosen for fronting, so that the intervener is not included within the RPPP, no intervention occurs:(23) Intervention avoided with smaller RPPP:
I want to try this recipe,a. * [RC [RPPP no ingredients for which] I haveat home].
Xb.
[RC [RPPP for which] I have no ingredients
at home].
X
at home].
c.
[RC [RP which] I have no ingredients for(=21b)

This parallels the contrast observed in interrogative pied-piping between (18) and(20) above. Intervention effects occur in RPPP whenever an intervener occurs above
the relative pronoun, inside its pied-piping.
The susceptibility of RPPP to intervention effects shows that relative pronouns
are interpreted in situ within the RPPP using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation, similarly to pied-piping in wh-questions. This is compatible only with Approach 3 to the problem of pied-piping presented in section 2.2 above, (12). Thiseffect would not be explained if the relative pronoun is moved out of RPPP (Approach 1) as movement is not sensitive to intervention. It is also not explained if therest of RPPP is interpreted low, in the base position of movement (Approach 2), as
the sensitivity to the size of movement (23) would be unexplained.
Note that we present this evidence here solely for non-restrictive relatives. Thisis, at least in part, due to a methodological issue: non-restrictive relative clauses
allow for larger RPPP than restrictive relatives (Emonds 1976, Emonds 1979, Jackendoff 1977, Nanni & Stillings 1978, a.o.) and this extra structure in the RPPP isnecessary to construct the intervention test cases as in (21) above.
(24) Restrictive relatives disallow larger RPPP:(exx Cable, 2010)a.
This book, [RC [RPPP the reviews of which] were awful], is really quite nice.
b. * No book [RC [RPPP the reviews of which] are awful] is really quite nice.
3.3 The problem of pied-piping again
Let us now consider how Approach 3 could yield the desired semantics for nonrestrictive relative clauses. Consider the LF representation of the relative clause in
Approach 3, repeated here:

158

M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE AND H ADAS KOTEK(25) One attempt at interpreting RC using Approach 3:a. [RC [RPPP whose talk] [α λx . I saw x at CLS]]
alt. computation(=12)

movementb. JαKo = λx . I saw x at CLS
c. JwhoKf = {John, Mary, Bill,...}
d. JRPPPKf = {talk A, talk B, talk C,...})(
I saw talk A at CLS,
e. JRCKf = I saw talk B at CLS,
I saw talk C at CLS,...

type he, ti
set with elements of type e
set with elements of type e
set of propositions

Consider the interpretation of this structure. Like in the interpretation of whquestions using alternative computation, we take the wh relative pronoun to have theset of animate individuals as its alternative-semantic value. This composes with therest of the pied-piping, yielding a set of talks as the alternative-semantic denotationof RPPP. Without loss of generality, we refer to the members of this set as {talk A,
talk B, talk C,...} (25d). Composing these values pointwise with α, we yield thealternative-semantic denotation for the entire RC in (25e), a set of propostions.6
Recall the null hypothesis in (14) above: non-restrictive relative clauses, liketheir restrictive counterparts, are property-denoting. In the case of (25), the property
we want to derive is a function that takes an individual, corresponding to the relative
pronoun who, and returns the corresponding propositions in JRCKf (25e).
This desired property thus requires a mapping from speakers to talks. However,this information cannot be reverse-engineered from the set of propositions in JRCKf .
Intuitively, the propositions in (25e) lack the information on whose talks are being
discussed. For example, the propositions in JRCKf are compatible with John having
given talk A, Mary having given talk B, and Bill having given talk C, but they arealso compatible with Mary having given talk A, John having given talk B, and Bill
having given talk C. We are hence unable to derive the correct property denotation
required by the null hypothesis (14).
Rooth (1992) notes that this construction of a “decoding function” is in general
not possible (see in particular footnote 15). This “decoding” problem has been
observed by previous authors who have considered Approach 3 (Sternefeld 2001,
Sauerland & Heck 2003), leading them to ultimately not pursue this approach to theinterpretation of RPPP.
We now seem to be at an impasse. On the one hand, evidence from intervention
effects suggests the relative pronoun inside RPPP is interpreted via Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation, and disrupting this process leads to uninterpretability of the
non-restrictive relative. On the other hand, we are unable to use the result of RoothHamblin alternative computation to construct a property denotation for the relative
clause, as required by the null hypothesis in (14), that non-restrictive relatives include a property-denoting core shared with corresponding restrictive relatives.
6
For convenience, extensional types are presented here. These propositions can be thought of as
intensionalized truth conditions, rather than as truth values.

T HE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NON - RESTRICTIVE RELATIVES

159

4 Proposal
We propose to resolve this problem by rejecting the null hypothesis (14). Instead,non-restrictive relative clauses are computed directly as a proposition, rather thanfirst computing the corresponding property.
Following the derivation illustrated in (25), however, there is still a question ofidentifying the appropriate proposition among those generated in JRCKf . We propose that this is done by radically contextually restricting the alternative-semantic
denotation of the relative pronoun who to the singleton set denoting the antecedentdescribed by the RC, (26).
(26) Relative pronoun who:

(27) Regular who:o(Beck, 2006, a.o.)oa. JwhoRP K undefinedb. JwhoRP Kf = {antecedentRC }a. JwhoK undefinedb. JwhoKf = {x | x ∈ De animate}

We adopt from Sells (1985), Demirdache (1991), and Del Gobbo (2007) the ideathat antecedentRC is an E-type anaphor, similar to cross-sentential anaphora. This
contrasts with the denotation proposed for wh-words in interrogative and quantificational constructions in (27), where the alternative-semantic value of wh ranges
over the entire set of possible corresponding short answers.
Consider now the interpretation of the non-restrictive relative in example (1)under this approach, in a context where Mary’s talk was talk B:(28) Proposed structure and interpretation:“Mary, whose talk I saw at CLS, is clearly brilliant.”
a. antecedentRC = Maryb. [RC [RPPP whose talk] [α λx . I saw x at CLS]]
alt. computationo(=1)

movementc. JαK = λx . I saw x at CLS
type he, ti
fd. JwhoRC K = {antecedentRP } = {Mary}set with element of type efe. JRPPPK = {talk B (= Mary’s talk)}
set with element of type eff. JRCK = {I saw talk B (= Mary’s talk) at CLS} set with a single prop.
Although the resulting alternative-semantic denotation JRCKf is still a set of
propositions, it is always a singleton set. As a result, there is no problem identifying the proposition corresponding to the antecedent Mary. All that remains is tointroduce this one element of JRCKf into the discourse as a not-at-issue projective
meaning. Notice that there is no step in this computation where we compute theproperty “λx . I saw x’s talk at CLS.”
Note that, because we contextually restrict JwhKf to be a singleton set in (26),this proposal is very similar to the effect of enforcing coindexation between therelative pronoun and the antecedent. This alternative is illustrated in (29).
(29) An alternative with coindexation in place of alternative computation:
Maryi , [[whoi ’s brother] I met at CLS], is clearly brilliant.

160

M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE AND H ADAS KOTEK

The crucial difference is that, under our proposal here, we are computing the RPPP
using Rooth-Hamblin alternatives—albeit the projection of a single alternative—
which makes it susceptible to intervention effects. Intervention effects are unexpected under the binding approach in (29).
Because alternative computation is normally used to compute non-singleton
sets of alternatives, we might wonder whether there are cases where there are, in
essence, multiple antecedents, with the meaning of the non-restrictive relative ranging over this set of individuals. This does not occur. Consider the test case in (30)
below, which contrasts a restrictive and non-restrictive relative:(30) Restrictive RC vs non-restrictive RC with plural head:a. Every mother [RC [RPPP whose son] is in the army] is concerned.
⇒ Each (relevant) mother has her own son.
restrictive
b. Mary and Sue, [RC [RPPP whose son] is in the army], are concerned.
⇒ Mary and Sue have a son together.
non-restrictive
In the restrictive case in (30a), the relative clause property is tested against eachindividual mother to restrict the domain of quantification. In contrast, in the nonrestrictive case in (30b), the antecedent Mary and Sue are necessarily described
together. Non-restrictive RCs do not “distribute” over antecedent individuals. Thereis always one (possibly plural) antecedent which is described.
The idea that the antecedent is identified by an E-type anaphor is motivatedby Demirdache (1991) by showing that cross-sentential anaphora can pick out thecorrect referent for the antecedent of parallel non-restrictive relatives. This works
in simple cases such as (31a) as well as in cases where the referent described is not
an individual (31b–c) (based on Demirdache, 1991, pp. 114–116).
(31) Non-restrictive RCs and parallel cross-sentential anaphora:7
a. i. I saw Mary, [RC who was late].
ii. I saw Maryi . Shei/∗j was late.
b. i. We [read Tom Sawyer], [RC which we had never done as children].
(Thompson 1971)
ii. We [read Tom Sawyer]i . We had never done it/thati,∗j as children.
c. i. I go there [whenever I have time], [RC which isn’t actually very often].
(Sells 1985)
ii. I go there [whenever I have time]i . It/thati/∗j isn’t actually very often.
Note that the ability to describe a non-individual antecedent is unique to nonrestrictive relatives, pointing to a fundamental difference between the derivationsof restrictive and non-restrictive relatives.
Furthermore, it is long known that non-restrictive relatives cannot be used withcertain quantificational antecedents (Thorne 1972, Karttunen 1976, McCawley 1988,
Potts 2002, a.o.). The availability of cross-sentential anaphora to refer to this antecedent patterns with the availability of non-restrictive relatives:
7
These examples are modified minimally from Demirdache (1991) and the original sources she
draws upon to make them sound maximally natural to our ears. In addition, for examples (b) and (c)Demirdache gives only the anaphor it, but the anaphor that is also good for us, if not better.

T HE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NON - RESTRICTIVE RELATIVES

161(32) Limits on antecedents of non-restrictives and cross-sentential anaphora:a. Indefinites:(Emonds 1979, p. 236)X
X
i. { One, some, *each, *no} student at this conference, [RC who I
talked toon the phone], is happy.
XX
ii. [{ One, some, *each, *no} student at this conference]i is happy.
I talked to him/heri on the phone.
b. Non-specific indefinite under negation:(Demirdache 1991, p. 134)
i. * I didn’t see a donkey, [RC who/which eats too much].
ii. * I didn’t see a donkeyi . Iti eats too much.
In addition, Demirdache (1991) notes that this approach provides a natural solution to split-antecedent relative clauses (Perlmutter & Ross, 1970), exemplified
in (33a). The non-restrictive relative who were quite similar in (33a) describes thesum of the man and woman introduced discontinuously. Split-antecedent relative
clauses have been notoriously difficult to model for common approaches to relative
clause formation.8 Example (33b) shows that cross-sentential anaphora can indeed
be used to identify the correct antecedent for the relative clause in (33a).
(33) Split-antecedent RC and parallel cross-sentential anaphor:a. A mani entered the room and a womanj went out, [RC whoi⊕j were quite
similar].
(Perlmutter & Ross 1970)
b. A mani entered the room and a womanj went out. Theyi⊕j were quite
similar.
(Demirdache 1991, p. 116)
5 Conclusion
In this paper we argued that restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses havea fundamentally different semantic interpretation: while restrictive relatives areproperty-denoting, non-restrictive relatives are proposition-denoting (see also Del
Gobbo 2007). The evidence motivating this claim came from a consideration of relative pronoun pied-piping, concentrating specifically on the behavior of intervention effects inside RPPP. Intervention effects have been shown in previous work to
diagnose regions of Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation. We show that RPPP,
like pied-piping in wh-questions, is sensitive to intervention effects.
We propose that non-restrictive relatives are interpreted through a combinationof movement of a relative pronoun—with pied-piping—and alternative computation inside pied-piping. To derive the non-intersective meaning of the RC, we propose that the relative pronoun projects a singleton alternative set, corresponding to
the RC’s antecedent. This allows us to directly derive the proposition denoted by
the RC, without first computing the corresponding property.
This proposal helps explain two differences between restrictive and non-restrictive
relatives in English. First, the fact that relative pronouns must be used in order toarrive at the propositional denotation of a non-restrictive RC explains why nonrestrictive relatives can only be constructed using relative pronouns, whereas restrictive relatives also have a that/∅ complementizer option. Second, the semantics
8

See McKinney-Bock (2013) for a recent review of approaches.

162

M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE AND H ADAS KOTEK

of Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation, used to interpret relative pronouns in
non-restrictive relatives, is insensitive to syntactic barriers such as islands. This
explains why RPPP in these RCs can be substantially larger than in restrictive RCs.
Acknowledgements
For comments and discussion we would like to thank Danny Fox, Martin Hackl,
Aron Hirsch, Chris Kennedy, David Pesetsky, and Gary Thoms, as well as the audience at CLS 51 and anonymous reviewers. Errors are our own.

References
Beck, S. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics
4.1–56.
Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics
14.1–56.
Beck, S., & S.-S. Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 6.339–384.
Beck, S., & S.-S. Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative
German Linguistics 9.165–208.
Bhatt, R. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: evidence from adjectival modification.
Natural Language Semantics 10.43–90.
Cable, S. The Grammar of Q. MIT dissertation.
Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford.
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, 71–132.
Del Gobbo, F. 2007. On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative clauses. In Parentheticals,
173–201. John Benjamins.
Demirdache, H. K. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives, and dislocation structures. MIT dissertation.
Emonds, J. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. Academic Press.
Emonds, J. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10.211–243.
Erlewine, M. Y., & H. Kotek. 2014. Intervention in focus pied-piping. In Proceedings of NELS
43, volume 1, 117–130.
Hamblin, C. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10.41–53.
Heim, I., & A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
Hulsey, S., & U. Sauerland. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics
14.111–137.
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-Bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. MIT Press.
Karttunen, L. 1976. Discourse referents. In Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363–385.
Academic Press.
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press.
Kim, S.-S. 2002. Intervention effects are focus effects. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10, 615–
628.
Kotek, H. 2014. Intervention out of islands. In Proceedings of NELS 44, volume 1, 234–246.
Kotek, H., 2015. Covert partial wh-movement and the nature of derivations. Ms., McGill.
Kotek, H., & M. Y. Erlewine. to appear. Covert pied-piping in English multiple wh-questions.
Linguistic Inquiry.
Kratzer, A., & J. Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: the view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25.
McCawley, J. D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53.99–139.
McCawley, J. D. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press.

T HE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NON - RESTRICTIVE RELATIVES

163

McKinney-Bock, K. 2013. Deriving split-antecedent relative clauses. In Proceedings of PLC 36,
113–122.
Nanni, D. L., & J. T. Stillings. 1978. Three remarks on pied piping. Linguistic Inquiry 9.310–318.
Partee, B. H. 1973. Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2.
Perlmutter, D. M., & J. R. Ross. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry
1.350.
Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. MIT Press.
Potts, C. 2002. The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax 5.55–88.
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. 2013. Presupposition and implicature. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic
Theory, Second edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge.
Rooth, M. Association with Focus. UMass Amherst dissertation.
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.75–116.
Ross, J. R. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. MIT dissertation.
Sauerland, U. The meaning of chains. MIT dissertation.
Sauerland, U., & F. Heck. 2003. LF-intervention effects in pied-piping. In Proceedings of NELS
33, 347–366.
Sells, P. 1985. Restrictive and non-restrictive modification. Technical Report CSLI-85-28, Center
for Study of Language and Information, Stanford.
de Vries, M. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying coordination, false freerelatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37.229–270.
Sternefeld, W. 2001. Partial movement constructions, pied piping, and higher order choice functions. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 473–486.
Taglicht, J. 1972. A new look at English relative constructions. Lingua 29.1–22.
Thompson, S. A. 1971. The deep structure of relative clauses. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics.
New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Thorne, J. P. 1972. On nonrestrictive relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 3.552–556.