Relative clauses distinguishing whom/with which/that


I love in Japanese, how adjectival clauses are just added in front of nouns
like adjectives.

The pizza that I ate = 私が食べたピザ

But last night I became confused... In english we have words to link the
clause to the main sentence (my grammar knowledge and terminology is pathetic,
I know).

a) The ball **that** I kicked  
b) The pen **with which** I wrote  
c) The building **that** I entered  
d) The garden **in which** I played  

Lets first look at a different form of those

A) I kicked the ball  
私はボールを蹴った  
B) I wrote **with** the pen  
私はペンで書いた  
C) I entered the building  
私はビルに入った  
D) I played **in** the garden  
私は庭で遊んだ  

In the Japanese we use different particles に、を、で to describe what part each
word plays in the sentence. Just like the english (with, in).

When we change the english to the first form (a,b,c,d). We use (with which, in
which, that). But from what I've seen, in the Japanese form the pattern is
indistinguishable between a,b,c,d

a) The ball **that** I kicked  
私が蹴ったボール  
b) The pen **with which** I wrote  
私が書いたペン  
c) The building **that** I entered  
私が入ったビル  
d) The garden **in which** I played  
私が遊んだ庭  

Is that correct? It seems to lose any idea of what part the noun played in the
action - it's ambiguous. To me (b) reads: "The pen I wrote". But maybe it
could be read as "The pen I wrote on" or "The pen I wrote with".

Am I doing it right? Or am I missing something. It may be that the part a noun
plays in the action is never ambiguous, but I'm not sure if that's true.




# Relative clauses in English

In English, relative clauses are formed by removing something, leaving behind
a **gap**.

> 1a) I kicked **the ball**  
>  1b) I wrote with **the pen**  
>  1c) I entered **the building**  
>  1d) I played in **the garden**

In each example, we'll pull out the bolded noun phrase, leaving behind a
**gap** :

> 2a) **the ball** [ _which/that/∅_ I kicked ____ ]  
>  2b) **the pen** [ _which/that/∅_ I wrote with ____ ]  
>  2c) **the building** [ _which/that/∅_ I entered ____ ]  
>  2d) **the garden** [ _which/that/∅_ I played in ____ ]
>
> Note: the ∅ symbol indicates the possibility of using neither _which_ nor
> _that_

In examples **a** and **c** , the gaps are the objects of the verbs _kicked_
and _entered_. In examples **b** and **d** , the gaps are the objects of the
prepositions _with_ and _in_.

The gap in each case is indicated by a **relative pronoun** ( _who, what,
which, how, where, when_ , etc.), which is inserted at the beginning of the
relative clause. In some situations, this pronoun can be replaced with the
less specific _that_ , and in some situations _that_ can be deleted entirely.

As it happens, in all four of your examples the appropriate relative pronoun
was _which_ ; in all four it can be replaced with _that_ ; and in all four
_that_ can be deleted entirely.

In two examples ( **b** and **d** ) the preposition before the gap can be
optionally **pied piped** --moved before the relative pronoun _which_ --but if
you do this, you can't replace it with _that_ :

> 3b) **the pen** [ with _which_ I wrote ~~with~~ ____ ]  
>  3d) **the garden** [ in _which_ I played ~~in~~ ____ ]

Because in many cases _that_ can be deleted, you can construct examples in
English without any overt indicator of where the gap is:

> 4a) **the ball** [ ∅ I kicked ____ ]  
>  4b) **the pen** [ ∅ I wrote with ___ ]  
>  4c) **the building** [ ∅ I entered ____ ]  
>  4d) **the garden** [ ∅ I played in ____ ]

Although there are no words "to link the clause to the main sentence" in
examples **4a** through **4d** , I'm sure you have no problem understanding
these examples. You immediately understand where the gap is, even if you don't
consciously think about something called a "gap"--or indeed about grammar at
all!

* * *

# Relative clauses in Japanese

In Japanese, not every relative clause has a gap, but most do.

However, there are no relative pronouns like _who, what, where_ , etc.; there
are no words like _that_ ; and there is no **pied piping**. This makes gapped
relative clauses in Japanese fairly simple. They're very similar to the
English examples **4a** through **4d** above. Since you can understand those,
I'm sure you can understand relative clauses in Japanese, too!

Let's take a look at your examples. But before we can relativize them, let's
replace the topic particle は with the case particle が. Why? Because **relative
clauses in Japanese don't contain topics** , so you need to use the version
with が to turn them into relative clauses.

Okay, here are your non-relative examples with は replaced:

> 5ａ) 私 **が** ボール **を** 蹴った  
>  5ｂ) 私 **が** ペン **で** 書いた  
>  5ｃ) 私 **が** ビル **に** 入った  
>  5ｄ) 私 **が** 庭 **で** 遊んだ

In each example, we have two case-marked nouns. (That means they're marked
with case particles like が, を, で, に, and so on.) Just like in English, we can
pick one of these to remove, leaving behind a **gap** :

> 6ａ) [ ＿＿ ボール **を** 蹴った ] **私**  
>  6ｂ) [ ＿＿ ペン **で** 書いた ] **私**  
>  6ｃ) [ ＿＿ ビル **に** 入った ] **私**  
>  6ｄ) [ ＿＿ 庭 **で** 遊んだ ] **私**

Now we have a relative clause! The head noun in each example is 私, which has
been pulled out of the relativized clause. Because in each example the case
particle が has gone missing, nothing tells us what role is played by the head
noun 私--we need to figure it out from context.

We can tell, for example, that in **6a** the relative clause already has an
を-marked noun, so the role played by 私 cannot be an を role. We must guess what
the role is from the set of possible roles the relative clause does **not**
contain, and then use our common sense to decide.

Of course, we could relativize the other element, as in your examples:

> 7ａ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿＿＿ 蹴った ] **ボール**  
>  7ｂ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿＿ 書いた ] **ペン**  
>  7ｃ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿＿ 入った ] **ビル**  
>  7ｄ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿ 遊んだ ] **庭**

Take a look back at sentences **4a** through **4d** again. You can understand
those, right? They're just like **7a** through **7d** --there aren't any words
specifying the role the head noun plays in the relative clause! And if you can
understand those sentences in English, I'm sure you can understand their
equivalents in Japanese. In each case, you can figure out which case role
makes sense: を, で, に, and で.

* * *

There's another process we need to talk about to describe relative clauses in
Japanese, by the way. It's called **が／の conversion**! When you have a noun
phrase marked with が in a relative clause, you can optionally mark it with の
instead. Let's rewrite the examples from **7a** through **7d** using の:

> 8ａ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿＿＿ 蹴った ] **ボール**  
>  8ｂ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿＿ 書いた ] **ペン**  
>  8ｃ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿＿ 入った ] **ビル**  
>  8ｄ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿ 遊んだ ] **庭**

But if the relative clause contains an を-marked noun phrase, you can't replace
が with の. Example **9a** is fine, but example **9b** is ungrammatical with the
intended meaning:

> 9ａ) [ ＿＿ ジョンが 本を 買った ] **店**  
>  9ｂ) [ ＿＿ *ジョンの 本を 買った ] **店**

Overall, forming these case-gapped relative clauses in Japanese is relatively
simple. Although their interpretation is sometimes ambiguous, you can usually
figure it out from context. In particular, looking at the set of case roles
already present in the relative clause can help you narrow down where the gap
is.

## Gapless relative clauses

However, Japanese also contains relative clauses **without** a gap. In these
gapless relatives, the head noun is in some way semantically restricted by the
content of the relative clause. You'll commonly see these with formal nouns
like こと:

> 10ａ) [ 東京に行った ] **こと** がない

In this example, the relative clause 東京に行った gives the formal noun こと a
specific meaning. But obviously, there's nowhere in the relative clause to
insert こと; it has no gap!

You'll also see this type of relative clause with lexical nouns. I'll borrow a
few examples from [Timothy Baldwin's
thesis](http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~tim/pubs/mthesis.pdf), along with his English
translations:

> 11ａ) [ 勝つ ] **意志** _the will to win_  
>  11ｂ) [ 魚を焼く ] **煙** _smoke from grilling fish_  
>  11ｃ) [ 学校に行った ] **帰り** _on the way back from school_

In each example, the precise semantic relationship between the relative clause
and the head noun is slightly different, but it can be inferred from context.
But in each example, there's no gap to be filled!

So to understand a relative clause in Japanese, ask yourself these four
questions:

  1. **Is there a gap?** Most of the time there is, but there isn't always!
  2. If so, **which case roles make sense with the verb?** (It can't be を with 寝る, for example.)
  3. Of those, **which roles are already filled?** (Where can the gap **not** be?)
  4. Of the remaining possibilities, **which role makes the most sense in context?**

Relative clauses are very common in Japanese, and the more you read, the more
you'll probably do all four steps automatically. Sure, sometimes things will
be ambiguous and you'll have to think about it, but most of the time you'll
probably be able to figure it out from context.

My advice? Just get used to spotting the possible relationships, and you'll be
well on your way to understanding relative clauses in Japanese!




# Relative clauses in English

In English, relative clauses are formed by removing something, leaving behind
a **gap**.

> 1a) I kicked **the ball**  
>  1b) I wrote with **the pen**  
>  1c) I entered **the building**  
>  1d) I played in **the garden**

In each example, we'll pull out the bolded noun phrase, leaving behind a
**gap** :

> 2a) **the ball** [ _which/that/∅_ I kicked ____ ]  
>  2b) **the pen** [ _which/that/∅_ I wrote with ____ ]  
>  2c) **the building** [ _which/that/∅_ I entered ____ ]  
>  2d) **the garden** [ _which/that/∅_ I played in ____ ]
>
> Note: the ∅ symbol indicates the possibility of using neither _which_ nor
> _that_

In examples **a** and **c** , the gaps are the objects of the verbs _kicked_
and _entered_. In examples **b** and **d** , the gaps are the objects of the
prepositions _with_ and _in_.

The gap in each case is indicated by a **relative pronoun** ( _who, what,
which, how, where, when_ , etc.), which is inserted at the beginning of the
relative clause. In some situations, this pronoun can be replaced with the
less specific _that_ , and in some situations _that_ can be deleted entirely.

As it happens, in all four of your examples the appropriate relative pronoun
was _which_ ; in all four it can be replaced with _that_ ; and in all four
_that_ can be deleted entirely.

In two examples ( **b** and **d** ) the preposition before the gap can be
optionally **pied piped** --moved before the relative pronoun _which_ --but if
you do this, you can't replace it with _that_ :

> 3b) **the pen** [ with _which_ I wrote ~~with~~ ____ ]  
>  3d) **the garden** [ in _which_ I played ~~in~~ ____ ]

Because in many cases _that_ can be deleted, you can construct examples in
English without any overt indicator of where the gap is:

> 4a) **the ball** [ ∅ I kicked ____ ]  
>  4b) **the pen** [ ∅ I wrote with ___ ]  
>  4c) **the building** [ ∅ I entered ____ ]  
>  4d) **the garden** [ ∅ I played in ____ ]

Although there are no words "to link the clause to the main sentence" in
examples **4a** through **4d** , I'm sure you have no problem understanding
these examples. You immediately understand where the gap is, even if you don't
consciously think about something called a "gap"--or indeed about grammar at
all!

* * *

# Relative clauses in Japanese

In Japanese, not every relative clause has a gap, but most do.

However, there are no relative pronouns like _who, what, where_ , etc.; there
are no words like _that_ ; and there is no **pied piping**. This makes gapped
relative clauses in Japanese fairly simple. They're very similar to the
English examples **4a** through **4d** above. Since you can understand those,
I'm sure you can understand relative clauses in Japanese, too!

Let's take a look at your examples. But before we can relativize them, let's
replace the topic particle は with the case particle が. Why? Because **relative
clauses in Japanese don't contain topics** , so you need to use the version
with が to turn them into relative clauses.

Okay, here are your non-relative examples with は replaced:

> 5ａ) 私 **が** ボール **を** 蹴った  
>  5ｂ) 私 **が** ペン **で** 書いた  
>  5ｃ) 私 **が** ビル **に** 入った  
>  5ｄ) 私 **が** 庭 **で** 遊んだ

In each example, we have two case-marked nouns. (That means they're marked
with case particles like が, を, で, に, and so on.) Just like in English, we can
pick one of these to remove, leaving behind a **gap** :

> 6ａ) [ ＿＿ ボール **を** 蹴った ] **私**  
>  6ｂ) [ ＿＿ ペン **で** 書いた ] **私**  
>  6ｃ) [ ＿＿ ビル **に** 入った ] **私**  
>  6ｄ) [ ＿＿ 庭 **で** 遊んだ ] **私**

Now we have a relative clause! The head noun in each example is 私, which has
been pulled out of the relativized clause. Because in each example the case
particle が has gone missing, nothing tells us what role is played by the head
noun 私--we need to figure it out from context.

We can tell, for example, that in **6a** the relative clause already has an
を-marked noun, so the role played by 私 cannot be an を role. We must guess what
the role is from the set of possible roles the relative clause does **not**
contain, and then use our common sense to decide.

Of course, we could relativize the other element, as in your examples:

> 7ａ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿＿＿ 蹴った ] **ボール**  
>  7ｂ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿＿ 書いた ] **ペン**  
>  7ｃ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿＿ 入った ] **ビル**  
>  7ｄ) [ 私 **が** ＿＿ 遊んだ ] **庭**

Take a look back at sentences **4a** through **4d** again. You can understand
those, right? They're just like **7a** through **7d** --there aren't any words
specifying the role the head noun plays in the relative clause! And if you can
understand those sentences in English, I'm sure you can understand their
equivalents in Japanese. In each case, you can figure out which case role
makes sense: を, で, に, and で.

* * *

There's another process we need to talk about to describe relative clauses in
Japanese, by the way. It's called **が／の conversion**! When you have a noun
phrase marked with が in a relative clause, you can optionally mark it with の
instead. Let's rewrite the examples from **7a** through **7d** using の:

> 8ａ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿＿＿ 蹴った ] **ボール**  
>  8ｂ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿＿ 書いた ] **ペン**  
>  8ｃ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿＿ 入った ] **ビル**  
>  8ｄ) [ 私 **の** ＿＿ 遊んだ ] **庭**

But if the relative clause contains an を-marked noun phrase, you can't replace
が with の. Example **9a** is fine, but example **9b** is ungrammatical with the
intended meaning:

> 9ａ) [ ＿＿ ジョンが 本を 買った ] **店**  
>  9ｂ) [ ＿＿ *ジョンの 本を 買った ] **店**

Overall, forming these case-gapped relative clauses in Japanese is relatively
simple. Although their interpretation is sometimes ambiguous, you can usually
figure it out from context. In particular, looking at the set of case roles
already present in the relative clause can help you narrow down where the gap
is.

## Gapless relative clauses

However, Japanese also contains relative clauses **without** a gap. In these
gapless relatives, the head noun is in some way semantically restricted by the
content of the relative clause. You'll commonly see these with formal nouns
like こと:

> 10ａ) [ 東京に行った ] **こと** がない

In this example, the relative clause 東京に行った gives the formal noun こと a
specific meaning. But obviously, there's nowhere in the relative clause to
insert こと; it has no gap!

You'll also see this type of relative clause with lexical nouns. I'll borrow a
few examples from [Timothy Baldwin's
thesis](http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~tim/pubs/mthesis.pdf), along with his English
translations:

> 11ａ) [ 勝つ ] **意志** _the will to win_  
>  11ｂ) [ 魚を焼く ] **煙** _smoke from grilling fish_  
>  11ｃ) [ 学校に行った ] **帰り** _on the way back from school_

In each example, the precise semantic relationship between the relative clause
and the head noun is slightly different, but it can be inferred from context.
But in each example, there's no gap to be filled!

So to understand a relative clause in Japanese, ask yourself these four
questions:

  1. **Is there a gap?** Most of the time there is, but there isn't always!
  2. If so, **which case roles make sense with the verb?** (It can't be を with 寝る, for example.)
  3. Of those, **which roles are already filled?** (Where can the gap **not** be?)
  4. Of the remaining possibilities, **which role makes the most sense in context?**

Relative clauses are very common in Japanese, and the more you read, the more
you'll probably do all four steps automatically. Sure, sometimes things will
be ambiguous and you'll have to think about it, but most of the time you'll
probably be able to figure it out from context.

My advice? Just get used to spotting the possible relationships, and you'll be
well on your way to understanding relative clauses in Japanese!

