Relativizer
In linguistics, a relativizer (abbreviated RELZ) is a type of conjunction that introduces a relative clause.
This analysis assumes that there is no overt head noun in the deep structure of the main clause.
From there, a corresponding relative pronoun leaves a trace in the space of the vacated noun phrase in the embedded clause.
D-Type Relativizers may only introduce a relative clause as an argument of a noun phrase.
[9] In Classical and Standard Arabic, the D-Type relativizer declines according to the gender and number of the noun, but the C-Type does not do so (according to the verb).
parisParislliRELbħibbaI.love.itparis lli bħibbaParis REL I.love.itThe Paris that I lovexabbaret-natold-usLailaLailaʔennothatl-mmaslinthe-actorsmʔadrabiinon.strikexabbaret-na Laila ʔenno l-mmaslin mʔadrabiintold-us Laila that the-actors on.strikeLaila told us that the actors are on strike.There are three types of relativizers used in English to introduce relative clauses: zero or null relativizers, wh-relativizers, and the that-relativizer.
These social factors and the potential influence of age, gender, and education have been minimally explored and seem to exhibit a lesser effect on relativizer omission.
Linguistic constraints, such as sentence structure and syntactic position of the relativizer, main clause construction type, lexical specificity of the head NP, type of antecedent, and the adjacency, length, and grammatical subject of the relative clause have been implicated as having more significant influence on the patterning of relativizer omission in Canadian English.
The null relativizer variant is more common in object than subject relative clauses.
[11] Empty head noun phrases, which are not lexically specific and which index generic groups or sets, have been correlated with the use of the null relativizer.
[11] When the subject of a relative clause is a full noun phrase, the overt relativizer will be retained.
[2] For example: The overt relativizers of Modern English include the words "which," "what," "when," "where," "who," "whom," and "whose", and these can be referred to within linguistics as "wh-words".
The other overt relativizer of Modern English is the word "that", which can be referred to as the "that-relativizer" where it introduces a relative clause.
In many cases, the relativizers of English are relative pronouns, meaning that they are in coreference with a noun that precedes them in the sentence.
However, speaker judgments vary as to whether it is grammatical for "who" to surface when it is referring to an object of the relative clause.
Since, depending on speaker judgments, either only "whom" or both "who and "whom" can grammatically introduce a relative clause referring to an object, there is an "m" in brackets on the end of the relativizer in example (25) below.
To exemplify:[10] Restrictive relative clauses have semantic properties which make them necessary to prevent the sentence from being ambiguous.
They are used in cases where the context that surrounds the sentence is not sufficient for the distinction between the potential nominal antecedents.
For example:[10] Note that (37) is ungrammatical because the relativizer introduces a non-finite relative clause, but it is not contained within a propositional phrase.
Teochew is a Chinese language originating from the Chaoshan region of the eastern Guangdong Province.
The most common way to form relative clauses in Indonesian Teochew is to use the relativizer kai.
If the optional relativizer yang is used, it precedes the modifying clause, as shown by example 39.
[zazik khau kai] si zi su mui.yesterday cry REL COP this CL one.
In addition, it is not possible to form a headless relative clause with a classifier in the place of the relativizer kai.
For example, nominalizing suffixes are attached to verbal elements in subject relative clauses.
