Questions: Relative Clause Formation (Mechanisms and Strategies)

Question 1

A linguist studies a language that can relativize subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects, but not obliques (e.g., 'the man that I gave the book to' is ungrammatical). Based on the Accessibility Hierarchy, which positions should also be ungrammatical in this language?

• A. Direct objects only, since indirect objects are already at the limit
• B. Subjects, since they are the most basic position to relativize
• C. Genitives and objects of comparison, since they are lower on the hierarchy than obliques
• D. Indirect objects, since the language cannot handle obliques

Answer: (C)

The Accessibility Hierarchy is an implicational universal: if a language can relativize a position, it can also relativize every higher position, but not necessarily lower ones. Since obliques rank below indirect objects, and the language can't relativize obliques, it also cannot relativize genitives or objects of comparison (which are below obliques). Subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects — all above obliques — remain grammatical. The hierarchy makes precise, cross-linguistically testable predictions in exactly this form.

Question 2

In Hebrew, the construction 'the man that I saw him' (with an overt pronoun 'him' in the object position) represents:

• A. A grammatical error in which the speaker forgot to delete the pronoun
• B. An ungrammatical structure that native speakers would correct to 'the man that I saw'
• C. A resumptive pronoun strategy — the grammatically regular way to form relative clauses in Hebrew
• D. A disfluency that arises when speakers are uncertain how to construct relative clauses

Answer: (C)

Resumptive pronouns are not errors — in Hebrew, Arabic, and many West African and Bantu languages, they are the grammatically regular strategy for relative clause formation. Rather than leaving a silent gap where the head noun's role is interpreted, the language uses an overt coreferential pronoun. English speakers learning about resumptives often assume they are repairs or mistakes, because English suppresses them under normal conditions — but they are fully grammatical strategies in the languages that use them systematically.

Question 3

In languages that use resumptive pronouns to form relative clauses, the resumptive fills the same grammatical function as the silent gap in English-style gap relatives.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Both the gap strategy (English) and the resumptive strategy (Hebrew, Arabic, many others) solve the same semantic problem: how to indicate the grammatical role that the head noun plays inside the relative clause. In English, 'the man [who I saw _]' uses a silent gap to mark the object position. In Hebrew, 'the man [that I saw him]' uses an overt coreferential pronoun in the same position. The semantic function is identical; only the phonological strategy (silence vs. overt pronoun) differs.

Question 4

According to the Accessibility Hierarchy, if a language can relativize obliques, it must also be able to relativize subjects.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

The Accessibility Hierarchy is a strict implicational universal: ability to relativize a lower-ranked position implies ability to relativize all higher-ranked ones. Since subjects are at the top of the hierarchy (subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique > genitive > object of comparison), any language that can relativize obliques must be able to relativize subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects as well. A language cannot skip levels — this is what makes the hierarchy predictive rather than merely descriptive.

Question 5

Why do resumptive pronouns appear in relative clauses in English in some contexts, even though English normally uses the gap strategy?

Model answer: Resumptives surface in English in long-distance extraction contexts where gap-formation is blocked or extremely demanding — when the gap would be deeply embedded or would violate extraction constraints. This suggests that resumptive pronouns are a universal grammatical option available across languages, and English merely suppresses them under ordinary conditions in favor of gaps. When gap-formation becomes too difficult (due to island constraints or processing load), the universal resumptive option surfaces even in English, indicating that the choice between strategies reflects gradient grammatical pressures, not a categorical either/or.

This finding — that English allows resumptives in sufficiently complex structures — supports the view that the gap/resumptive distinction is not a binary typological parameter but a spectrum of preferences modulated by syntactic and processing constraints. Languages differ in where they set the threshold at which resumptives become the preferred or required strategy.