Are relative clauses used differently in Japanese?


I understand how relative clauses are formed in Japanese; but, are there any
differences with regards to where, what, when, and why, a relative clause is
used?

The two languages' relative clauses look very different, and Japanese
sentences like using really long ones; so would I be right in thinking
Japanese people apply them differently, too?

Please give examples if possible, thanks!




Japanese relative clauses can be very long, but it can be very short, too.
Here are examples of Japanese relative clauses.

>   * 飛ぶ鳥 flying bird
>   * 青い鳥 blue bird
>   * 変な本 strange book
>   * 見るの (the action of) seeing
>   * 見ること (the action of) seeing
>

If you think the second and the third ones are not using a relative clause,
please read [this answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1016/5010). The
last two are better known as nominalization, but functionally they're relative
clauses, too. So Japanese relative clauses are syntactically much simpler, and
in a sense, typical Japanese sentences use many micro relative clauses like
these.

But at the same time, Japanese relative clauses can be very long and nested.
English sentences often make use of "it" as a dummy (or empty, formal)
subject/object in order to change the word order and say an important
predicate first (examples of [dummy
subjects](http://www.ravco.jp/cat/view.php?cat_id=5572) and [dummy
objects](http://www.ravco.jp/cat/view.php?cat_id=5573)). The Japanese language
doesn't have this structure and rather prefers very long relative clauses.

> **_It_ is my pleasure to have** an opportunity to make a speech at this
> distinguished gathering and share my view on the various problems in Asian
> countries with you.  
>  {この素晴らしい集まりでスピーチをし、アジア各国の諸問題に関する私の考えを皆様と共有する機会を頂けました} **ことは光栄です。**

Other examples are [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/48622/5010) and
[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/39604/5010). I don't know which is
"simpler", but I kind of feel the Japanese way is consistent :)




Japanese relative clauses can be very long, but it can be very short, too.
Here are examples of Japanese relative clauses.

>   * 飛ぶ鳥 flying bird
>   * 青い鳥 blue bird
>   * 変な本 strange book
>   * 見るの (the action of) seeing
>   * 見ること (the action of) seeing
>

If you think the second and the third ones are not using a relative clause,
please read [this answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1016/5010). The
last two are better known as nominalization, but functionally they're relative
clauses, too. So Japanese relative clauses are syntactically much simpler, and
in a sense, typical Japanese sentences use many micro relative clauses like
these.

But at the same time, Japanese relative clauses can be very long and nested.
English sentences often make use of "it" as a dummy (or empty, formal)
subject/object in order to change the word order and say an important
predicate first (examples of [dummy
subjects](http://www.ravco.jp/cat/view.php?cat_id=5572) and [dummy
objects](http://www.ravco.jp/cat/view.php?cat_id=5573)). The Japanese language
doesn't have this structure and rather prefers very long relative clauses.

> **_It_ is my pleasure to have** an opportunity to make a speech at this
> distinguished gathering and share my view on the various problems in Asian
> countries with you.  
>  {この素晴らしい集まりでスピーチをし、アジア各国の諸問題に関する私の考えを皆様と共有する機会を頂けました} **ことは光栄です。**

Other examples are [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/48622/5010) and
[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/39604/5010). I don't know which is
"simpler", but I kind of feel the Japanese way is consistent :)

