A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses As pointed out, in many ways the relative clause has many

properties in common with a whinterrogative. But relative clauses are not interrogative, but declarative. This is clear both from their interpretation and the fact that they may start with the complementiser that which as we have seen, introduces declarative clauses. Thus, the wh-element which starts relative and interrogative clauses seems to have a different set of features: an interrogative pronoun is [+wh] and a relative pronoun is [wh]. One might think therefore that they are entirely different lexical elements. This is supported by the fact that in some languages there are differences between relative and interrogative pronouns. In Hungarian for instance, there is a systematic difference with relative pronouns beginning with a : (81) Interrogative Relative ki kit (who nom acc) aki akit mi mit (what nom acc) ami amit mikor (when) amikor hol (where) ahol melyik (which) amelyik Even so, there is still an obvious relationship between the two and so it probably would not be wise to claim them to be completely separate. It may be that wh-pronouns are lexically unmarked for the feature [wh] and get this through the agreement with the appropriate complementiser, though this suggestion does not entirely square with the claim made earlier that in main clauses there is no complementiser for the interrogative pronoun to agree with. Whatever the relationship between interrogative and relative pronouns, it still needs to be acknowledged that there are different possibilities in both types. For example, in English although what is a perfectly good interrogative pronoun, its use as a relative pronoun is somewhat stigmatised, being seen as a characteristic of uneducated speech. Dialects and sociolects that make use of what relatives also do not use the relative pronoun in a way consistent with the interrogative pronoun. While what as an interrogative pronoun has a nonhuman aspect to it in any dialect, in that you couldnt point to a person and ask what is that without being offensive (who is that would obviously be more appropriate), what-relatives are often used to modify nouns with human referents: (82) a a man [what I know] b this bloke [what I was telling you about] In standard English, however, what-relatives are not accepted even for modifying nouns with non-human referents: (83) a *the book [what I read] b *an idea [what I had]

The only acceptable use of a what-relatives in standard English is in relatives which appear to lack a modified noun, what are sometimes called headless relatives: (84) a [what you should do now] is b [what I say and what I do] are two totally different things c [what I dont understand] is To conclude on this issue, what as an interrogative pronoun and what as a relative pronoun are used in very different ways in all dialects. There is another interesting difference between the use of interrogative and relative pronouns which shows that there is a possibility available for a relative pronoun that is not generally available with interrogatives. The restrictive relative is often noted to come in three different forms. One starts with a wh-relative pronoun and is called a wh-relative. Another starts with the complementiser that and is called a that-relative, and the third has nothing in front of the subject and is called a zero relative. These are exemplified below: (85) a the man [who I paid] b the man [that I paid] c the man [I paid] The wh-relative resembles an interrogative in more than just the fact that it is introduced by a wh-element, but also in the process which apparently forms the two structures. In both cases, the wh-element starts off inside the clause and moves to the specifier of CP. Thus, both types of clauses start with a wh-element and have a corresponding gap in the position it was moved from. The gap contains the trace of the moved wh-element: (86) a I wonder [who1 Sherlock suspects t1] b the butler [who1 Sherlock suspects t1] Interestingly, although they do not start with a wh-element, both that-relatives and zero relatives contain a gap in the same place that they would if they did have a wh-element: (87) a the butler [that Sherlock suspects -] b the butler [Sherlock suspects -] We should first counter a myth about that-relatives that prevails from traditional grammars. In these it is common to find that at the beginning of the relative clause referred to as a relative pronoun, thus suggesting that it be given the same treatment as wh-elements. If this is true, then this element originates inside the clause and moves to the specifier of CP, as do wh-elements. But there are many reasons to believe that this word is not a wh-element but is, as appearances predict, a simple complementiser. Firstly, note that as would be predicated on the assumption that it is a complementiser, that is only ever used in finite clauses and although wh-elements can marginally be used in non-finite clauses, that never is:

(88) a the man [who to contact] *the man [that to contact] b a place [where to stay] *a place [that to live] Instead, we can get a for complementiser in non-finite relatives, as would be expected: (89) a a man [for you to contact] b a place [for me to stay] Another argument that that is not a relative pronoun in that-relatives is that it does not behave like a wh-element with respect to prepositions. Note the following two possibilities with a whrelative: (90) a the house [which1 I live in t1] b the house [in which1 I live t1] When the wh-element is part of a PP it has the option of moving alone, a strategy known as preposition stranding, or of taking the whole PP with it, a strategy known as pied-piping (after the story of the Pied Piper of Hamlin, who played his pipes and the rats followed him the connection between prepositions and rats is, however, mysterious). If that were a relative pronoun, we might expect the same options to be available in that-relatives. But this is not true: (91) a the house [that I live in -] b *the house [in that I live -] One explanation for why we do not get pied piping with a that-relatives is that that is not a relative pronoun and did not originate in the gapped position and hence the preposition could not be pied-piped by it. If that is a complementiser in the that-relatives, then that-relatives and zero relatives are alike in that they do not contain a wh-element and the difference appears to be the standard ability of the complementiser to be overt or covert in a finite clause: (92) a I said [(that) I was reading a book] b the book [(that) I was reading -] The fact remains however, that there is still a gap in these relative clauses. What is the nature of this gap? In many ways it has exactly the same nature as the gap in a wh-relative. Consider this a little more closely: in a wh-relative, the relative clause acts as a modifier of the noun by relating the noun to a position in the relative clause itself. Thus in (93a) the noun is modified by being interpreted as the object of the verb in the relative clause, whereas in (93b) the noun is modified by being interpreted as the subject of the relative clause: (93) a b

The relationship between the noun and the relevant position is not a direct one, however: it is not the noun which moved out of this position otherwise we would end up with a somewhat circular structure with the noun being part of the relative clause that is part of the NP headed by the noun! The relationship between the noun and the position in the relative clause is mediated by the relative pronoun: it is this element that originates in the relevant position and this pronoun is referentially dependent on the noun: (94) a b

We might claim that this is exactly what the function of the relative pronoun is in a relative clause. Indeed, if there is no wh-element related to a gap, or if the wh-element does not move to create the gap, then the relative clause is ungrammatical: (95) a *the team [we beat Liverpool] b *the team [we beat which] If this is true, then the same must be true of all relatives, including that and zero ones. The fact that we cannot detect a wh-element in these relatives suggests that they should be analysed as containing an empty wh-element, similar to the empty operator in yesno questions, but this time behaving like the type of wh-element that originates inside the IP and moves to the spec of CP: (96) Thus the difference between relative clauses and interrogative clauses in this respect is that relative clauses can use the null operator in ways not possible in an interrogative, i.e. as a referential operator rather than a non-referential one which is associated with the truth of the expression. Having enumerated several differences between interrogative and relative clauses we can now ponder the question of whether these differences show a fundamental distinction between the constructions, or whether they fall out from other considerations. Let us start with why the whelement undergoes movement in both constructions. We have said that the interrogative whelement undergoes movement because the clause needs to be interpreted as interrogative. This clearly cannot be the reason for the movement of the relative pronoun as relative clauses are not interrogative. The reason why a relative pronoun moves is presumably something to do with its function as a mediator between the modified noun and a position inside the relative clause and again this seems to differ from the wh-interrogative as wh-elements in interrogatives do not act as mediators. However, if we take one step back from the details, we can see some striking similarities between the reasons for wh-movement in both types of clauses. For one thing, both movements have semantic rather than grammatical motivations. Moreover, the reason why the wh-element moves in an interrogative is to enable the CP to be interpreted as a question. The reason why the wh-element moves in a relative clause is to enable the CP to be interpreted as a modifier.

Finally by moving to the specifier of the CP, the wh-element is interpreted as an operator in both interrogative and relative clauses. The fact that one is interpreted more like a quantificational operator, like quantificational pronouns such as everyone or someone, while the other is interpreted like an anaphoric operator, which is referentially dependent on some other element in the sentence, like a reflexive pronoun such as himself, falls out due to the different functions of questions and relative clauses: one asks a question and the other modifies a noun. What about the use of empty operators in relatives as compared to their limited use in interrogatives?: (97) a the idea [Op1 (that) I had t1] b *I asked [Op1 (if) you had t1] Again this may be entirely due to differences in the use of these constructions. As a relative clause modifies a noun making use of an anaphoric operator, there must be an antecedent for the operator to take its reference from. This antecedent, i.e. the modified noun, can provide us with the content of the operator and hence this is recoverable even if we cannot see the operator itself. With a question, however, as there is no antecedent, the content of the operator has to be visible on the operator itself and hence the null operator cannot be used in this way. The null operator used in yesno questions is clearly non-referential and hence has no specific content to be recovered. In this situation then the null operator can suffice. In conclusion then, it seems that the differences between interrogative and relative clauses are mainly to do with their different functions. Syntactic and other differences may be derivable from these. Certainly, given the above discussion, it is not really surprising that they have very similar internal organisations and employ very similar processes in their formation.